[RFC PATCH 00/10] Xe DRM scheduler and long running workload plans
Christian König
christian.koenig at amd.com
Tue Apr 11 09:02:55 UTC 2023
The point is that this not only requires some work in the drm_scheduler,
but rather it then makes only little sense to use the drm_scheduler in
the first place.
The whole point of the drm_scheduler is to provide dma_fence
implementation for the submitted jobs.
We also have dependency handling, but as Daniel and I said this can be
easily extracted into a separate object/component.
Regards,
Christian.
Am 07.04.23 um 02:20 schrieb Zeng, Oak:
> So this series basically go with option 2. The part that option2 makes me uncomfortable is, dma-fence doesn't work for long running workload, why we generate it in the first place? As long as dma-fence is generated, it will become a source of confusion in the future. It doesn't matter how much you annotate it/document it. So if we decide to go with option2, the bottom line is, don't generate dma-fence for long running workload during job submission. This requires some rework in drm scheduler.
>
> The cleanest solution to me is option3. Dma-fence is a very old technology. When it was created, no gpu support page fault. Obviously this is not a good technology for modern gpu with page fault support. I think the best way is to create a new scheduler and dependency tracking mechanism works for both page fault enabled and page fault disabled context. I think this matches what Christian said below. Maybe nobody think this is easy?
>
> Thanks,
> Oak
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brost, Matthew <matthew.brost at intel.com>
>> Sent: April 5, 2023 2:53 PM
>> To: Zeng, Oak <oak.zeng at intel.com>
>> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>; Vetter, Daniel
>> <daniel.vetter at intel.com>; Thomas Hellström
>> <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>; dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org; intel-
>> xe at lists.freedesktop.org; robdclark at chromium.org; airlied at linux.ie;
>> lina at asahilina.net; boris.brezillon at collabora.com; faith.ekstrand at collabora.com
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Xe DRM scheduler and long running workload
>> plans
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 12:06:53PM -0600, Zeng, Oak wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Using dma-fence for completion/dependency tracking for long-run
>> workload(more precisely on-demand paging/page fault enabled workload) can
>> cause deadlock. This seems the significant issue here. Other issues such as the
>> drm scheduler completion order implication etc are minors which can be solve
>> inside the framework of drm scheduler. We need to evaluate below paths:
>>> 1) still use drm scheduler for job submission, and use dma-fence for job
>> completion waiting/dependency tracking. This is solution proposed in this series.
>> Annotate dma-fence for long-run workload: user can still wait dma-fence for job
>> completion but can't wait dma-fence while holding any memory management
>> locks. We still use dma-fence for dependency tracking. But it is just very easily
>> run into deadlock when on-demand paging is in the picture. The annotation helps
>> us to detect deadlock but not solve deadlock problems. Seems *not* a complete
>> solution: It is almost impossible to completely avoid dependency deadlock in
>> complex runtime environment
>> No one can wait on LR fence, so it is impossible to deadlock. The
>> annotations enforce this. Literally this is only for flow controling the
>> ring / hold pending jobs in in the DRM schedule list.
>>
>>> 2) Still use drm scheduler but not use dma-fence for completion signaling
>> and dependency tracking. This way we still get some free functions (reset, err
>> handling ring flow control as Matt said)from drm scheduler, but push the
>> dependency/completion tracking completely to user space using techniques such
>> as user space fence. User space doesn't have chance to wait fence while holding
>> a kernel memory management lock, thus the dma-fence deadlock issue is solved.
>> We use user space fence for syncs.
>>
>>> 3) Completely discard drm scheduler and dma-fence for long-run
>> workload. Use user queue/doorbell for super fast submission, directly interact
>> with fw scheduler. Use user fence for completion/dependency tracking.
>> This is a hard no from me, I want 1 submission path in Xe. Either we use
>> the DRM scheduler or we don't.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Oak
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>>>> Sent: April 5, 2023 3:30 AM
>>>> To: Brost, Matthew <matthew.brost at intel.com>; Zeng, Oak
>>>> <oak.zeng at intel.com>
>>>> Cc: dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org; intel-xe at lists.freedesktop.org;
>>>> robdclark at chromium.org; thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com;
>> airlied at linux.ie;
>>>> lina at asahilina.net; boris.brezillon at collabora.com;
>> faith.ekstrand at collabora.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Xe DRM scheduler and long running workload
>>>> plans
>>>>
>>>> Am 04.04.23 um 20:08 schrieb Matthew Brost:
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 12:02:03PM -0600, Zeng, Oak wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Matt, Thomas,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some very bold out of box thinking in this area:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. so you want to use drm scheduler and dma-fence for long running
>> workload.
>>>> Why you want to do this in the first place? What is the benefit? Drm scheduler
>> is
>>>> pretty much a software scheduler. Modern gpu has scheduler built at fw/hw
>>>> level, as you said below for intel this is Guc. Can xe driver just directly submit
>> job
>>>> to Guc, bypassing drm scheduler?
>>>>> If we did that now we have 2 paths for dependency track, flow controling
>>>>> the ring, resets / error handling / backend submission implementations.
>>>>> We don't want this.
>>>> Well exactly that's the point: Why?
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can see that are two completely distinct use cases, so you
>>>> absolutely do want two completely distinct implementations for this.
>>>>
>>>>>> 2. using dma-fence for long run workload: I am well aware that page fault
>> (and
>>>> the consequent memory allocation/lock acquiring to fix the fault) can cause
>>>> deadlock for a dma-fence wait. But I am not convinced that dma-fence can't
>> be
>>>> used purely because the nature of the workload that it runs very long
>> (indefinite).
>>>> I did a math: the dma_fence_wait_timeout function's third param is the
>> timeout
>>>> which is a signed long type. If HZ is 1000, this is about 23 days. If 23 days is not
>> long
>>>> enough, can we just change the timeout parameter to signed 64 bits so it is
>> much
>>>> longer than our life time...
>>>>>> So I mainly argue we can't use dma-fence for long-run workload is not
>>>> because the workload runs very long, rather because of the fact that we use
>>>> page fault for long-run workload. If we enable page fault for short-run
>> workload,
>>>> we can't use dma-fence either. Page fault is the key thing here.
>>>>>> Now since we use page fault which is *fundamentally* controversial with
>>>> dma-fence design, why now just introduce a independent concept such as
>> user-
>>>> fence instead of extending existing dma-fence?
>>>>>> I like unified design. If drm scheduler, dma-fence can be extended to work
>> for
>>>> everything, it is beautiful. But seems we have some fundamental problem
>> here.
>>>>> Thomas's patches turn a dma-fence into KMD sync point (e.g. we just use
>>>>> the signal / CB infrastructure) and enforce we don't use use these
>>>>> dma-fences from the scheduler in memory reclaim paths or export these to
>>>>> user space or other drivers. Think of this mode as SW only fence.
>>>> Yeah and I truly think this is an really bad idea.
>>>>
>>>> The signal/CB infrastructure in the dma_fence turned out to be the
>>>> absolutely nightmare I initially predicted. Sorry to say that, but in
>>>> this case the "I've told you so" is appropriate in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> If we need infrastructure for long running dependency tracking we should
>>>> encapsulate that in a new framework and not try to mangle the existing
>>>> code for something it was never intended for.
>>>>
>>>> Christian.
>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Oak
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: dri-devel <dri-devel-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of
>>>>>>> Matthew Brost
>>>>>>> Sent: April 3, 2023 8:22 PM
>>>>>>> To: dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org; intel-xe at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>>>>> Cc: robdclark at chromium.org; thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com;
>>>> airlied at linux.ie;
>>>>>>> lina at asahilina.net; boris.brezillon at collabora.com; Brost, Matthew
>>>>>>> <matthew.brost at intel.com>; christian.koenig at amd.com;
>>>>>>> faith.ekstrand at collabora.com
>>>>>>> Subject: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Xe DRM scheduler and long running workload
>>>> plans
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a prerequisite to merging the new Intel Xe DRM driver [1] [2], we
>>>>>>> have been asked to merge our common DRM scheduler patches first as
>> well
>>>>>>> as develop a common solution for long running workloads with the DRM
>>>>>>> scheduler. This RFC series is our first attempt at doing this. We
>>>>>>> welcome any and all feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This can we thought of as 4 parts detailed below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - DRM scheduler changes for 1 to 1 relationship between scheduler and
>>>>>>> entity (patches 1-3)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In Xe all of the scheduling of jobs is done by a firmware scheduler (the
>>>>>>> GuC) which is a new paradigm WRT to the DRM scheduler and presents
>>>>>>> severals problems as the DRM was originally designed to schedule jobs
>> on
>>>>>>> hardware queues. The main problem being that DRM scheduler expects
>> the
>>>>>>> submission order of jobs to be the completion order of jobs even across
>>>>>>> multiple entities. This assumption falls apart with a firmware scheduler
>>>>>>> as a firmware scheduler has no concept of jobs and jobs can complete
>> out
>>>>>>> of order. A novel solution for was originally thought of by Faith during
>>>>>>> the initial prototype of Xe, create a 1 to 1 relationship between scheduler
>>>>>>> and entity. I believe the AGX driver [3] is using this approach and
>>>>>>> Boris may use approach as well for the Mali driver [4].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To support a 1 to 1 relationship we move the main execution function
>>>>>>> from a kthread to a work queue and add a new scheduling mode which
>>>>>>> bypasses code in the DRM which isn't needed in a 1 to 1 relationship.
>>>>>>> The new scheduling mode should unify all drivers usage with a 1 to 1
>>>>>>> relationship and can be thought of as using scheduler as a dependency /
>>>>>>> infligt job tracker rather than a true scheduler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Generic messaging interface for DRM scheduler
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Idea is to be able to communicate to the submission backend with in
>> band
>>>>>>> (relative to main execution function) messages. Messages are backend
>>>>>>> defined and flexable enough for any use case. In Xe we use these
>>>>>>> messages to clean up entites, set properties for entites, and suspend /
>>>>>>> resume execution of an entity [5]. I suspect other driver can leverage
>>>>>>> this messaging concept too as it a convenient way to avoid races in the
>>>>>>> backend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Support for using TDR for all error paths of a scheduler / entity
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fix a few races / bugs, add function to dynamically set the TDR timeout.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Annotate dma-fences for long running workloads.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The idea here is to use dma-fences only as sync points within the
>>>>>>> scheduler and never export them for long running workloads. By
>>>>>>> annotating these fences as long running we ensure that these dma-
>> fences
>>>>>>> are never used in a way that breaks the dma-fence rules. A benefit of
>>>>>>> thus approach is the scheduler can still safely flow control the
>>>>>>> execution ring buffer via the job limit without breaking the dma-fence
>>>>>>> rules.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again this a first draft and looking forward to feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Enjoy - Matt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel
>>>>>>> [2] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/112188/
>>>>>>> [3] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/114772/
>>>>>>> [4]
>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/515854/?series=112188&rev=1
>>>>>>> [5] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel/-/blob/drm-xe-
>>>>>>> next/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c#L1031
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matthew Brost (8):
>>>>>>> drm/sched: Convert drm scheduler to use a work queue rather than
>>>>>>> kthread
>>>>>>> drm/sched: Move schedule policy to scheduler / entity
>>>>>>> drm/sched: Add DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY scheduling
>> policy
>>>>>>> drm/sched: Add generic scheduler message interface
>>>>>>> drm/sched: Start run wq before TDR in drm_sched_start
>>>>>>> drm/sched: Submit job before starting TDR
>>>>>>> drm/sched: Add helper to set TDR timeout
>>>>>>> drm/syncobj: Warn on long running dma-fences
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thomas Hellström (2):
>>>>>>> dma-buf/dma-fence: Introduce long-running completion fences
>>>>>>> drm/sched: Support long-running sched entities
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 142 +++++++---
>>>>>>> drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c | 5 +
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_debugfs.c | 14 +-
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c | 15 +-
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 5 +-
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_sched.c | 5 +-
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_sched.c | 5 +-
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_device.c | 6 +-
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_ringbuffer.c | 5 +-
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c | 5 +-
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 127 +++++++--
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c | 6 +-
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 278 +++++++++++++++--
>> ---
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/v3d/v3d_sched.c | 25 +-
>>>>>>> include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 130 +++++++--
>>>>>>> include/linux/dma-fence.h | 60 ++++-
>>>>>>> 16 files changed, 649 insertions(+), 184 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 2.34.1
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list