[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/7] drm/i915/gem/ttm: Respect the objection region in placement_from_obj

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 10:00 AM Thomas Hellström
<thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 7/22/21 11:59 AM, Matthew Auld wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 10:49, Matthew Auld
> > <matthew.william.auld at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 at 21:11, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 8:35 AM Matthew Auld
> >>> <matthew.william.auld at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 20:49, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 1:45 PM Matthew Auld
> >>>>> <matthew.william.auld at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 18:39, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:00 AM Matthew Auld
> >>>>>>> <matthew.william.auld at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 16:52, Matthew Auld
> >>>>>>>> <matthew.william.auld at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 15:10, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 8:54 AM Matthew Auld
> >>>>>>>>>> <matthew.william.auld at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 23:39, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever we had a user object (n_placements > 0), we were ignoring
> >>>>>>>>>>>> obj->mm.region and always putting obj->placements[0] as the requested
> >>>>>>>>>>>> region.  For LMEM+SMEM objects, this was causing them to get shoved into
> >>>>>>>>>>>> LMEM on every i915_ttm_get_pages() even when SMEM was requested by, say,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> i915_gem_object_migrate().
> >>>>>>>>>>> i915_ttm_migrate calls i915_ttm_place_from_region() directly with the
> >>>>>>>>>>> requested region, so there shouldn't be an issue with migration right?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you have some more details?
> >>>>>>>>>> With i915_ttm_migrate directly, no.  But, in the last patch in the
> >>>>>>>>>> series, we're trying to migrate LMEM+SMEM buffers into SMEM on
> >>>>>>>>>> attach() and pin it there.  This blows up in a very unexpected (IMO)
> >>>>>>>>>> way.  The flow goes something like this:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>   - Client attempts a dma-buf import from another device
> >>>>>>>>>>   - In attach() we call i915_gem_object_migrate() which calls
> >>>>>>>>>> i915_ttm_migrate() which migrates as requested.
> >>>>>>>>>>   - Once the migration is complete, we call i915_gem_object_pin_pages()
> >>>>>>>>>> which calls i915_ttm_get_pages() which depends on
> >>>>>>>>>> i915_ttm_placement_from_obj() and so migrates it right back to LMEM.
> >>>>>>>>> The mm.pages must be NULL here, otherwise it would just increment the
> >>>>>>>>> pages_pin_count?
> >>>>>>> Given that the test is using the ____four_underscores version, it
> >>>>>>> doesn't have that check.  However, this executes after we've done the
> >>>>>>> dma-buf import which pinned pages.  So we should definitely have
> >>>>>>> pages.
> >>>>>> We shouldn't call ____four_underscores() if we might already have
> >>>>>> pages though. Under non-TTM that would leak the pages, and in TTM we
> >>>>>> might hit the WARN_ON(mm->pages) in __i915_ttm_get_pages(), if for
> >>>>>> example nothing was moved. I take it we can't just call pin_pages()?
> >>>>>> Four scary underscores usually means "don't call this in normal code".
> >>>>> I've switched the ____four_underscores call to a __two_underscores in
> >>>>> the selftests and it had no effect, good or bad.  But, still, probably
> >>>>> better to call that one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe the problem here is actually that our TTM code isn't respecting
> >>>>>>>>>> obj->mm.pages_pin_count?
> >>>>>>>>> I think if the resource is moved, we always nuke the mm.pages after
> >>>>>>>>> being notified of the move. Also TTM is also not allowed to move
> >>>>>>>>> pinned buffers.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I guess if we are evicted/swapped, so assuming we are not holding the
> >>>>>>>>> object lock, and it's not pinned, the future call to get_pages() will
> >>>>>>>>> see mm.pages = NULL, even though the ttm_resource is still there, and
> >>>>>>>>> because we prioritise the placements[0], instead of mm.region we end
> >>>>>>>>> up moving it for no good reason. But in your case you are holding the
> >>>>>>>>> lock, or it's pinned? Also is this just with the selftest, or
> >>>>>>>>> something real?
> >>>>>>>> Or at least in the selftest I see ____i915_gem_object_get_pages()
> >>>>>>>> which doesn't even consider the mm.pages AFAIK.
> >>>>>>> The bogus migration is happening as part of the
> >>>>>>> __i915_gem_object_get_pages() (2 __underscores) call in
> >>>>>>> i915_gem_dmabuf_attach (see last patch).  That code is attempting to
> >>>>>>> migrate the BO to SMEM and then pin it there using the obvious calls
> >>>>>>> to do so.  However, in the pin_pages call, it gets implicitly migrated
> >>>>>>> back to LMEM thanks to i915_ttm_get_pages().  Why is _get_pages()
> >>>>>>> migrating things at all?
> >>>>>> Not sure yet, but __two_underscores() checks if
> >>>>>> i915_gem_object_has_pages() before actually calling into
> >>>>>> i915_ttm_get_pages(), so the mm.pages would have to be NULL here for
> >>>>>> some reason, so best guess is something to do with move_notify().
> >>>>> Did a bit of experimenting along those lines and added the following
> >>>>> to the self-test BEFORE the export/import:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>      i915_gem_object_lock(obj, NULL);
> >>>>>      err = __i915_gem_object_get_pages(obj);
> >>>>>      __i915_gem_object_unpin_pages(obj);
> >>>>>      i915_gem_object_unlock(obj);
> >>>>>      if (err) {
> >>>>>          pr_err("__i915_gem_object_get_pages failed with err=%d\n", err);
> >>>>>          goto out_ret;
> >>>>>      }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This seems to make the migration happen as expected without this
> >>>>> patch.  So it seems the problem only exists on buffers that haven't
> >>>>> gotten any backing storage yet (if I'm understanding get_pages
> >>>>> correctly).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One potential work-around (not sure if this is a good idea or not!)
> >>>>> would be to do this inside dmabuf_attach().  Is this reliable?  Once
> >>>>> it has pages will it always have pages?  Or are there crazy races I
> >>>>> need to be worried about here?
> >>>> It turns out that the i915_ttm_adjust_gem_after_move() call in
> >>>> ttm_object_init will always update the mm.region to system memory(so
> >>>> that it matches the ttm resource), which seems reasonable given the
> >>>> default system placeholder thing, but does seem slightly iffy since we
> >>>> haven't actually moved/allocated anything.
> >>>>
> >>>> So effectively i915_ttm_migrate(SYSTEM) becomes a noop here since
> >>>> mm.region == mr. Which ofc means when we actually call get_pages() all
> >>>> that happens is that we allocate the pages in system memory(or without
> >>>> this patch placements[0]). Also with this patch lmem+smem, will always
> >>>> be placed in smem first, regardless of the placements ordering.
> >>>>
> >>>> For now we could maybe just split i915_ttm_adjust_gem_after_move() so
> >>>> we skip the part which updates the mm.region here in the init portion,
> >>>> since that should only happen when we try to place the object for
> >>>> real?
> >>> Doesn't that mean we would end up with obj->mm.region and
> >>> obj->mm.res->mem_type are out-of-sync?  That seems bad.  I would think
> >>> we'd want the two in sync at all times.
> >> It likely doesn't matter since all roads lead to i915_ttm_get_pages()
> >> when we need to actually use the object?
> >>
> >> Also updating the mm.region in ttm_object_init() to reflect the dummy
> >> ttm resource seems a little scary, since any existing is_lmem() check
> >> now needs to happen after we place the object. Or at least the
> >> existing callers(for kernel internal objects) might not have expected
> >> that behaviour. Not sure if we checked all the callers.
> >>
> >>> It seems like the fundamental problem here is that, when it's created,
> >>> the object isn't really in any memory region at all.  While I don't
> >>> think obj->mm.region == NULL is allowed or a good idea, it does seem
> >>> closer to the ground truth.
> >> Yeah, seems reasonable, especially for create_user where we don't know
> >> the placement until we actually call get_pages(). I think for internal
> >> users like with create_lmem() setting the mm.region early still makes
> >> some sense?
> >>
> >>> Perhaps what we really want is for i915_gem_object_migrate to
> >>> get_pages before it does the migration to ensure that pages exist.
> >>> The only call to i915_gem_object_migrate in the code-base today is in
> >>> the display code and it's immediately followed by pin_pages().  For
> >>> that matter, maybe the call we actually want is
> >>> i915_object_migrate_and_pin that does the whole lot.
> >> I guess the only downside is that we might end up doing a real
> >> migration, with mempy or the blitter vs just changing the preferred
> >> placement for later? I think just go with whatever you feel is the
> >> simplest for now.
> > Another cheapo could be to drop the mr == mm.region noop, and just try
> > to place the object at mr anyway?
> >
> There are a number of things to consider here,
>
> First, as Jason found out what's keeping thing from working as intended
> is that we actually call into TTM get_pages() after migration, since the
> object isn't populated with pages yet. That's indeed a bug.
>
> We should probably have migrate be migrate_and_populate(): Whatever
> kernel code decides to migrate needs to hold the object lock over the
> operation where data needs to be migrated or in the worst case call
> pin() under the lock which currently needs to be the case for dma-buf
> and display.
>
> If we blindly just look at obj->mm.region() in get_pages() then if an
> object with allowable placements in lmem and smem initially gets placed
> in lmem, and then evicted to smem it will never migrate back to lmem
> unless if there is an explicit i915_gem_object_migrate(), but again,
> that's perhaps what we want? I guess we need to more clearly define the
> migration policies; for example should we attempt to migrate evicted
> buffers back to lmem on each execbuf where they are referenced, even if
> they haven't lost their pages?

Looking at amdgpu things are indeed complicated:
- mmap adds some hints that cpu access is preferred (iirc at least) so
that the unmappable vram problems aren't too awful
- execbuf adds vram to the non-evict placement list whenever that
makes sense (i.e. preferred place and no inferred hint like mmap
access countering that)
- for eviction there's a ratelimit, to make sure we're not thrashing
terribly and spending all the gpu time moving buffers around with the
copy engine

Maybe another interim strategy would be to only evict non-busy
buffers, not sure ttm supports that already. We definitely don't want
to unconditionally force all buffers into lmem on every execbuf.
-Daniel


> On region dicrepance between gem and TTM there is a short DOC: section
> in i915_gem_ttm.c
>
> /Thomas
>
>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> --Jason
> >>>
> >>> P.S.  I'm going to go ahead and send another version with your other
> >>> comments addressed.  We can keep this discussion going here for now.



-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch