[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_exec_balancer: Check for scheduling bonded-pairs on the same engine
Tvrtko Ursulin
tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com
Mon Sep 23 14:29:11 UTC 2019
On 20/09/2019 23:26, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The expectation for bonded submission is that they are run concurrently,
> in parallel on multiple engines. However, given a lack of constraints in
> the scheduler's selection combined with timeslicing could mean that the
> bonded requests could be run in opposite order on the same engine. With
> just the right pair of requests, this can cause a GPU hang (or at least
> trigger hangchecker), best (worst) case would be execution running
> several times slower than ideal.
I don't see any bonding being setup?
[comes back later]
Oh you used only the submit fence and not actually bonds. But you also
don't use the virtual engine at all?
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> ---
> tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c | 151 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 151 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c
> index 407dc0eca..e4fe75747 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c
> @@ -30,6 +30,15 @@
>
> IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Exercise in-kernel load-balancing");
>
> +#define MI_SEMAPHORE_WAIT (0x1c << 23)
> +#define MI_SEMAPHORE_POLL (1 << 15)
> +#define MI_SEMAPHORE_SAD_GT_SDD (0 << 12)
> +#define MI_SEMAPHORE_SAD_GTE_SDD (1 << 12)
> +#define MI_SEMAPHORE_SAD_LT_SDD (2 << 12)
> +#define MI_SEMAPHORE_SAD_LTE_SDD (3 << 12)
> +#define MI_SEMAPHORE_SAD_EQ_SDD (4 << 12)
> +#define MI_SEMAPHORE_SAD_NEQ_SDD (5 << 12)
> +
> #define INSTANCE_COUNT (1 << I915_PMU_SAMPLE_INSTANCE_BITS)
>
> static size_t sizeof_load_balance(int count)
> @@ -694,6 +703,145 @@ static void bonded(int i915, unsigned int flags)
> gem_context_destroy(i915, master);
> }
>
> +static unsigned int offset_in_page(void *addr)
> +{
> + return (uintptr_t)addr & 4095;
> +}
> +
> +static uint32_t create_semaphore_to_spinner(int i915, igt_spin_t *spin)
> +{
> + uint32_t *cs, *map;
> + uint32_t handle;
> +
> + handle = gem_create(i915, 4096);
> + cs = map = gem_mmap__cpu(i915, handle, 0, 4096, PROT_WRITE);
> +
> + /* Wait until the spinner is running */
> + *cs++ = MI_SEMAPHORE_WAIT |
> + MI_SEMAPHORE_POLL |
> + MI_SEMAPHORE_SAD_NEQ_SDD |
> + (4 - 2);
> + *cs++ = 0;
> + *cs++ = spin->obj[0].offset + 4 * SPIN_POLL_START_IDX;
> + *cs++ = 0;
> +
> + /* Then cancel the spinner */
> + *cs++ = MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM;
> + *cs++ = spin->obj[IGT_SPIN_BATCH].offset +
> + offset_in_page(spin->condition);
> + *cs++ = 0;
> + *cs++ = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
> +
> + *cs++ = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
> + munmap(map, 4096);
> +
> + return handle;
> +}
> +
> +static void bonded_slice(int i915)
> +{
> + uint32_t ctx;
> + int *stop;
> +
> + igt_require(gem_scheduler_has_semaphores(i915));
> +
> + stop = mmap(0, 4096, PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED | MAP_ANON, -1, 0);
> + igt_assert(stop != MAP_FAILED);
> +
> + ctx = gem_context_create(i915);
> +
> + for (int class = 0; class < 32; class++) {
> + struct i915_engine_class_instance *siblings;
> + struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 obj[3] = {};
> + struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 eb = {};
> + unsigned int count;
> + igt_spin_t *spin;
> +
> + siblings = list_engines(i915, 1u << class, &count);
> + if (!siblings)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (count < 2) {
> + free(siblings);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * A: semaphore wait on spinner; cancel spinner
> + * B: unpreemptable spinner
> + *
> + * A waits for running ack from B, if scheduled on the same
> + * engine -> hang.
> + *
> + * C+: background load across engines
> + */
> +
> + set_load_balancer(i915, ctx, siblings, count, NULL);
> +
> + spin = __igt_spin_new(i915,
> + .ctx = ctx,
> + .flags = (IGT_SPIN_NO_PREEMPTION |
> + IGT_SPIN_POLL_RUN));
> + igt_spin_end(spin); /* we just want its address for later */
> + gem_sync(i915, spin->handle);
> + igt_spin_reset(spin);
> +
> + obj[0] = spin->obj[0];
> + obj[1] = spin->obj[1];
> + obj[2].handle = create_semaphore_to_spinner(i915, spin);
> +
> + eb.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(obj);
> + eb.rsvd1 = ctx;
> +
> + *stop = 0;
> + igt_fork(child, count + 1) {
> + igt_list_del(&spin->link);
> +
> + ctx = gem_context_clone(i915, ctx,
> + I915_CONTEXT_CLONE_ENGINES, 0);
> +
> + while (!READ_ONCE(*stop)) {
> + spin = igt_spin_new(i915,
> + .ctx = ctx,
> + .engine = (1 + rand() % count),
With "count + 1" children and rand load my end up uneven across engines
- are you happy with that?
> + .flags = IGT_SPIN_POLL_RUN);
> + igt_spin_busywait_until_started(spin);
> + usleep(50000);
50ms, hm, ideally there should be a pipe signal before parent starts the
test to know children have started. Otherwise parent can finish before
they even start, no?
> + igt_spin_free(i915, spin);
> + }
> +
> + gem_context_destroy(i915, ctx);
> + }
> +
> + igt_until_timeout(5) {
> + igt_spin_reset(spin);
What is the reset for?
> +
> + /* A: Submit the semaphore wait */
> + eb.buffer_count = 3;
> + eb.flags = (1 + rand() % count) | I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT;
> + gem_execbuf_wr(i915, &eb);
> +
> + /* B: Submit the spinner (in parallel) */
How in parallel when it is the same context so they are implicitly in order?
Regards,
Tvrtko
> + eb.buffer_count = 2;
> + eb.flags = 0 | I915_EXEC_FENCE_SUBMIT;
> + eb.rsvd2 >>= 32;
> + gem_execbuf(i915, &eb);
> + close(eb.rsvd2);
> +
> + gem_sync(i915, obj[2].handle);
> + }
> +
> + *stop = 1;
> + igt_waitchildren();
> +
> + gem_close(i915, obj[2].handle);
> + igt_spin_free(i915, spin);
> + }
> +
> + gem_context_destroy(i915, ctx);
> + munmap(stop, 4096);
> +}
> +
> static void indices(int i915)
> {
> I915_DEFINE_CONTEXT_PARAM_ENGINES(engines, I915_EXEC_RING_MASK + 1);
> @@ -1320,6 +1468,9 @@ igt_main
> igt_subtest("bonded-cork")
> bonded(i915, CORK);
>
> + igt_subtest("bonded-slice")
> + bonded_slice(i915);
> +
> igt_fixture {
> igt_stop_hang_detector();
> }
>
More information about the igt-dev
mailing list