[Intel-gfx] [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 16:21:50 UTC 2019
On 23/09/2019 16:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-09-23 15:29:11)
>>
>> 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?
>
> A is using either of the 2 real engines, B is using the virtual engine
> to select the other available engine. Bonding in this case is just that
> the requests are bonded together to run in parallel.
>
>>> 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];
igt_assert_eq(IGT_SPIN_BATCH, 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?
>
> It's using rand, it's going to be uneven. count + 1 isn't significant in
> any way. I stopped as soon as I had the test reliably hitting the issue.
>
>>> + .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?
>
> The children are just to provide noise. The requirement is that we have
> enough load across the system to cause timeslicing to kick in.
>
>>> + igt_spin_free(i915, spin);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + gem_context_destroy(i915, ctx);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + igt_until_timeout(5) {
>>> + igt_spin_reset(spin);
>>
>> What is the reset for?
>
> We are reusing the spinner inside the loop.
>
>>> +
>>> + /* 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?
>
> Different engines with different timelines, using the submit to request
> parallel execution.
Yeah I kind of missed a few things. Looks good. For completeness you
should also add a flavour which actually sets up the bond so the "if
(bond)" path in virtual_bond_execute is also exercised. But this looks good.
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
Regards,
Tvrtko
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list