<!DOCTYPE html><html><head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body> Am 25.01.24 um 19:37 schrieb Zeng, Oak: <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:SA1PR11MB69913BCFDA5F28199D5E002F927A2@SA1PR11MB6991.namprd11.prod.outlook.com"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">-----Original Message----- From: Felix Kuehling <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:felix.kuehling@amd.com"><felix.kuehling@amd.com></a> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 12:16 PM To: Zeng, Oak <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:oak.zeng@intel.com"><oak.zeng@intel.com></a>; Christian König <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:christian.koenig@amd.com"><christian.koenig@amd.com></a>; Danilo Krummrich <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dakr@redhat.com"><dakr@redhat.com></a>; Dave Airlie <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:airlied@redhat.com"><airlied@redhat.com></a>; Daniel Vetter <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:daniel@ffwll.ch"><daniel@ffwll.ch></a>; Shah, Ankur N <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ankur.n.shah@intel.com"><ankur.n.shah@intel.com></a>; Winiarski, Michal <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:michal.winiarski@intel.com"><michal.winiarski@intel.com></a> Cc: Welty, Brian <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:brian.welty@intel.com"><brian.welty@intel.com></a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a>; intel- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:xe@lists.freedesktop.org">xe@lists.freedesktop.org</a>; Bommu, Krishnaiah <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:krishnaiah.bommu@intel.com"><krishnaiah.bommu@intel.com></a>; Ghimiray, Himal Prasad <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com"><himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com></a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Thomas.Hellstrom@linux.intel.com">Thomas.Hellstrom@linux.intel.com</a>; Vishwanathapura, Niranjana <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com"><niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com></a>; Brost, Matthew <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:matthew.brost@intel.com"><matthew.brost@intel.com></a>; Gupta, saurabhg <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:saurabhg.gupta@intel.com"><saurabhg.gupta@intel.com></a> Subject: Re: Making drm_gpuvm work across gpu devices On 2024-01-24 20:17, Zeng, Oak wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> Hi Christian, Even though I mentioned KFD design, I didn’t mean to copy the KFD design. I also had hard time to understand the difficulty of KFD under virtualization environment. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">The problem with virtualization is related to virtualization design choices. There is a single process that proxies requests from multiple processes in one (or more?) VMs to the GPU driver. That means, we need a single process with multiple contexts (and address spaces). One proxy process on the host must support multiple guest address spaces. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> My first response is, why processes on the virtual machine can't open /dev/kfd device itself?</pre> </blockquote> Because it's not using SRIOV, we are using native context and so the KFD driver is on the host and not the guest. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:SA1PR11MB69913BCFDA5F28199D5E002F927A2@SA1PR11MB6991.namprd11.prod.outlook.com"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Also try to picture why base amdgpu driver (which is per hardware device based) doesn't have this problem... creating multiple contexts under single amdgpu device, each context servicing one guest process?</pre> </blockquote> Yes, exactly that. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:SA1PR11MB69913BCFDA5F28199D5E002F927A2@SA1PR11MB6991.namprd11.prod.outlook.com"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> I don't know much more than these very high level requirements, and I only found out about those a few weeks ago. Due to my own bias I can't comment whether there are bad design choices in the proxy architecture or in KFD or both. The way we are considering fixing this, is to enable creating multiple KFD contexts in the same process. Each of those contexts will still represent a shared virtual address space across devices (but not the CPU). Because the device address space is not shared with the CPU, we cannot support our SVM API in this situation. </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> One kfd process, multiple contexts, each context has a shared address space across devices.... I do see some complications 😊</pre> </blockquote> Yeah, if the process which talks to the driver is not the process which initiated the work then the concept to tie anything to device state obviously doesn't work. Regards, Christian. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:SA1PR11MB69913BCFDA5F28199D5E002F927A2@SA1PR11MB6991.namprd11.prod.outlook.com"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I still believe that it makes sense to have the kernel mode driver aware of a shared virtual address space at some level. A per-GPU API and an API that doesn't require matching CPU and GPU virtual addresses would enable more flexibility at the cost duplicate information tracking for multiple devices and duplicate overhead for things like MMU notifiers and interval tree data structures. Having to coordinate multiple devices with potentially different address spaces would probably make it more awkward to implement memory migration. The added flexibility would go mostly unused, except in some very niche applications. Regards, Felix </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">For us, Xekmd doesn't need to know it is running under bare metal or virtualized environment. Xekmd is always a guest driver. All the virtual address used in xekmd is guest virtual address. For SVM, we require all the VF devices share one single shared address space with guest CPU program. So all the design works in bare metal environment can automatically work under virtualized environment. +@Shah, Ankur N <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ankur.n.shah@intel.com"><mailto:ankur.n.shah@intel.com></a> +@Winiarski, Michal <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:michal.winiarski@intel.com"><mailto:michal.winiarski@intel.com></a> to backup me if I am wrong. Again, shared virtual address space b/t cpu and all gpu devices is a hard requirement for our system allocator design (which means malloc’ed memory, cpu stack variables, globals can be directly used in gpu program. Same requirement as kfd SVM design). This was aligned with our user space software stack. For anyone who want to implement system allocator, or SVM, this is a hard requirement. I started this thread hoping I can leverage the drm_gpuvm design to manage the shared virtual address space (as the address range split/merge function was scary to me and I didn’t want re-invent). I guess my takeaway from this you and Danilo is this approach is a NAK. Thomas also mentioned to me drm_gpuvm is a overkill for our svm address range split/merge. So I will make things work first by manage address range xekmd internally. I can re-look drm-gpuvm approach in the future. Maybe a pseudo user program can illustrate our programming model: Fd0 = open(card0) Fd1 = open(card1) Vm0 =xe_vm_create(fd0) //driver create process xe_svm on the process's first vm_create Vm1 = xe_vm_create(fd1) //driver re-use xe_svm created above if called from same process Queue0 = xe_exec_queue_create(fd0, vm0) Queue1 = xe_exec_queue_create(fd1, vm1) //check p2p capability calling L0 API…. ptr = malloc()//this replace bo_create, vm_bind, dma-import/export Xe_exec(queue0, ptr)//submit gpu job which use ptr, on card0 Xe_exec(queue1, ptr)//submit gpu job which use ptr, on card1 //Gpu page fault handles memory allocation/migration/mapping to gpu As you can see, from above model, our design is a little bit different than the KFD design. user need to explicitly create gpuvm (vm0 and vm1 above) for each gpu device. Driver internally have a xe_svm represent the shared address space b/t cpu and multiple gpu devices. But end user doesn’t see and no need to create xe_svm. The shared virtual address space is really managed by linux core mm (through the vma struct, mm_struct etc). From each gpu device’s perspective, it just operate under its own gpuvm, not aware of the existence of other gpuvm, even though in reality all those gpuvm shares a same virtual address space. See one more comment inline *From:*Christian König <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:christian.koenig@amd.com"><christian.koenig@amd.com></a> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2024 3:33 AM *To:* Zeng, Oak <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:oak.zeng@intel.com"><oak.zeng@intel.com></a>; Danilo Krummrich <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dakr@redhat.com"><dakr@redhat.com></a>; Dave Airlie <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:airlied@redhat.com"><airlied@redhat.com></a>; Daniel Vetter <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:daniel@ffwll.ch"><daniel@ffwll.ch></a>; Felix Kuehling <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:felix.kuehling@amd.com"><felix.kuehling@amd.com></a> *Cc:* Welty, Brian <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:brian.welty@intel.com"><brian.welty@intel.com></a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org">intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org</a>; Bommu, Krishnaiah <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:krishnaiah.bommu@intel.com"><krishnaiah.bommu@intel.com></a>; Ghimiray, Himal Prasad <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com"><himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com></a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Thomas.Hellstrom@linux.intel.com">Thomas.Hellstrom@linux.intel.com</a>; Vishwanathapura, Niranjana <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com"><niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com></a>; Brost, Matthew <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:matthew.brost@intel.com"><matthew.brost@intel.com></a>; Gupta, saurabhg <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:saurabhg.gupta@intel.com"><saurabhg.gupta@intel.com></a> *Subject:* Re: Making drm_gpuvm work across gpu devices Am 23.01.24 um 20:37 schrieb Zeng, Oak: [SNIP] Yes most API are per device based. One exception I know is actually the kfd SVM API. If you look at the svm_ioctl </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">function, it is per-process based. Each kfd_process represent a process across N gpu devices. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> Yeah and that was a big mistake in my opinion. We should really not do that ever again. Need to say, kfd SVM represent a shared virtual address space across CPU </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">and all GPU devices on the system. This is by the definition of SVM (shared virtual memory). This is very different from our legacy gpu *device* driver which works for only one device (i.e., if you want one device to access another device's memory, you will have to use dma-buf export/import etc). </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> Exactly that thinking is what we have currently found as blocker for a virtualization projects. Having SVM as device independent feature which somehow ties to the process address space turned out to be an extremely bad idea. The background is that this only works for some use cases but not all of them. What's working much better is to just have a mirror functionality which says that a range A..B of the process address space is mapped into a range C..D of the GPU address space. Those ranges can then be used to implement the SVM feature required for higher level APIs and not something you need at the UAPI or even inside the low level kernel memory management. When you talk about migrating memory to a device you also do this on a per device basis and *not* tied to the process address space. If you then get crappy performance because userspace gave contradicting information where to migrate memory then that's a bug in userspace and not something the kernel should try to prevent somehow. [SNIP] I think if you start using the same drm_gpuvm for multiple devices you will sooner or later start to run into the same mess we have seen with KFD, where we moved more and more functionality from the KFD to the </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">DRM </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> render node because we found that a lot of the stuff simply doesn't work correctly with a single object to maintain the state. As I understand it, KFD is designed to work across devices. A single pseudo </pre> </blockquote> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">/dev/kfd device represent all hardware gpu devices. That is why during kfd open, many pdd (process device data) is created, each for one hardware device for this process. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> Yes, I'm perfectly aware of that. And I can only repeat myself that I see this design as a rather extreme failure. And I think it's one of the reasons why NVidia is so dominant with Cuda. This whole approach KFD takes was designed with the idea of extending the CPU process into the GPUs, but this idea only works for a few use cases and is not something we should apply to drivers in general. A very good example are virtualization use cases where you end up with CPU address != GPU address because the VAs are actually coming from the guest VM and not the host process. I don’t get the problem here. For us, under virtualization, both the cpu address and gpu virtual address operated in xekmd is guest virtual address. They can still share the same virtual address space (as SVM required) Oak SVM is a high level concept of OpenCL, Cuda, ROCm etc.. This should not have any influence on the design of the kernel UAPI. If you want to do something similar as KFD for Xe I think you need to get explicit permission to do this from Dave and Daniel and maybe even Linus. Regards, Christian. </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </body> </html>