[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 2/4] drm/i915/ttm: Adjust gem flags and caching settings after a move
Thomas Hellström
thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com
Mon Jun 14 11:14:17 UTC 2021
On 6/14/21 12:49 PM, Matthew Auld wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 11:32, Thomas Hellström
> <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/14/21 12:20 PM, Matthew Auld wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 10:53, Thomas Hellström
>>> <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>> After a TTM move or object init we need to update the i915 gem flags and
>>>> caching settings to reflect the new placement. Currently caching settings
>>>> are not changed during the lifetime of an object, although that might
>>>> change moving forward if we run into performance issues or issues with
>>>> WC system page allocations.
>>>> Also introduce gpu_binds_iomem() and cpu_maps_iomem() to clean up the
>>>> various ways we previously used to detect this.
>>>> Finally, initialize the TTM object reserved to be able to update
>>>> flags and caching before anyone else gets hold of the object.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> v2:
>>>> - Style fixes (Reported by Matthew Auld)
>>>> v3:
>>>> - More style fixes. Clarify why we're updating caching settings after move.
>>>> (Suggested by Matthew Auld)
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c | 111 +++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>> 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c
>>>> index 33ab47f1e05b..5176682a7d19 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c
>>>> @@ -70,6 +70,17 @@ static struct ttm_placement i915_sys_placement = {
>>>> .busy_placement = &lmem0_sys_placement_flags[1],
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> +static bool gpu_binds_iomem(struct ttm_resource *mem)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return mem->mem_type != TTM_PL_SYSTEM;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static bool cpu_maps_iomem(struct ttm_resource *mem)
>>>> +{
>>>> + /* Once / if we support GGTT, this is also false for cached ttm_tts */
>>>> + return mem->mem_type != TTM_PL_SYSTEM;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static void i915_ttm_adjust_lru(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj);
>>>>
>>>> static struct ttm_tt *i915_ttm_tt_create(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
>>>> @@ -175,6 +186,40 @@ static void i915_ttm_free_cached_io_st(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
>>>> obj->ttm.cached_io_st = NULL;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static void
>>>> +i915_ttm_adjust_domains_after_cpu_move(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct ttm_buffer_object *bo = i915_gem_to_ttm(obj);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (cpu_maps_iomem(bo->resource) || bo->ttm->caching != ttm_cached) {
>>>> + obj->write_domain = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_WC;
>>>> + obj->read_domains = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_WC;
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + obj->write_domain = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU;
>>>> + obj->read_domains = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU;
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void i915_ttm_adjust_gem_after_move(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(obj->base.dev);
>>>> + struct ttm_buffer_object *bo = i915_gem_to_ttm(obj);
>>>> + unsigned int cache_level;
>>>> +
>>>> + obj->mem_flags &= ~(I915_BO_FLAG_STRUCT_PAGE | I915_BO_FLAG_IOMEM);
>>>> +
>>>> + obj->mem_flags |= cpu_maps_iomem(bo->resource) ? I915_BO_FLAG_IOMEM :
>>>> + I915_BO_FLAG_STRUCT_PAGE;
>>>> +
>>>> + if ((HAS_LLC(i915) || HAS_SNOOP(i915)) && !gpu_binds_iomem(bo->resource) &&
>>>> + bo->ttm->caching == ttm_cached)
>>>> + cache_level = I915_CACHE_LLC;
>>>> + else
>>>> + cache_level = I915_CACHE_NONE;
>>>> +
>>>> + i915_gem_object_set_cache_coherency(obj, cache_level);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static void i915_ttm_purge(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
>>>> {
>>>> struct ttm_buffer_object *bo = i915_gem_to_ttm(obj);
>>>> @@ -190,8 +235,10 @@ static void i915_ttm_purge(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
>>>>
>>>> /* TTM's purge interface. Note that we might be reentering. */
>>>> ret = ttm_bo_validate(bo, &place, &ctx);
>>>> -
>>>> if (!ret) {
>>>> + obj->write_domain = 0;
>>>> + obj->read_domains = 0;
>>>> + i915_ttm_adjust_gem_after_move(obj);
>>>> i915_ttm_free_cached_io_st(obj);
>>>> obj->mm.madv = __I915_MADV_PURGED;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -273,12 +320,15 @@ i915_ttm_resource_get_st(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
>>>> struct ttm_resource *res)
>>>> {
>>>> struct ttm_buffer_object *bo = i915_gem_to_ttm(obj);
>>>> - struct ttm_resource_manager *man =
>>>> - ttm_manager_type(bo->bdev, res->mem_type);
>>>>
>>>> - if (man->use_tt)
>>>> + if (!gpu_binds_iomem(res))
>>>> return i915_ttm_tt_get_st(bo->ttm);
>>>>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * If CPU mapping differs, we need to add the ttm_tt pages to
>>>> + * the resulting st. Might make sense for GGTT.
>>>> + */
>>>> + GEM_WARN_ON(!cpu_maps_iomem(res));
>>>> return intel_region_ttm_node_to_st(obj->mm.region, res);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -290,8 +340,6 @@ static int i915_ttm_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, bool evict,
>>>> struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj = i915_ttm_to_gem(bo);
>>>> struct ttm_resource_manager *dst_man =
>>>> ttm_manager_type(bo->bdev, dst_mem->mem_type);
>>>> - struct ttm_resource_manager *src_man =
>>>> - ttm_manager_type(bo->bdev, bo->resource->mem_type);
>>>> struct intel_memory_region *dst_reg, *src_reg;
>>>> union {
>>>> struct ttm_kmap_iter_tt tt;
>>>> @@ -332,34 +380,36 @@ static int i915_ttm_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, bool evict,
>>>> if (IS_ERR(dst_st))
>>>> return PTR_ERR(dst_st);
>>>>
>>>> - /* If we start mapping GGTT, we can no longer use man::use_tt here. */
>>>> - dst_iter = dst_man->use_tt ?
>>>> + dst_iter = !cpu_maps_iomem(dst_mem) ?
>>>> ttm_kmap_iter_tt_init(&_dst_iter.tt, bo->ttm) :
>>>> ttm_kmap_iter_iomap_init(&_dst_iter.io, &dst_reg->iomap,
>>>> dst_st, dst_reg->region.start);
>>>>
>>>> - src_iter = src_man->use_tt ?
>>>> + src_iter = !cpu_maps_iomem(bo->resource) ?
>>>> ttm_kmap_iter_tt_init(&_src_iter.tt, bo->ttm) :
>>>> ttm_kmap_iter_iomap_init(&_src_iter.io, &src_reg->iomap,
>>>> obj->ttm.cached_io_st,
>>>> src_reg->region.start);
>>>>
>>>> ttm_move_memcpy(bo, dst_mem->num_pages, dst_iter, src_iter);
>>>> + /* Below dst_mem becomes bo->resource. */
>>>> ttm_bo_move_sync_cleanup(bo, dst_mem);
>>>> + i915_ttm_adjust_domains_after_cpu_move(obj);
>>>> i915_ttm_free_cached_io_st(obj);
>>>>
>>>> - if (!dst_man->use_tt) {
>>>> + if (gpu_binds_iomem(dst_mem) || cpu_maps_iomem(dst_mem)) {
>>>> obj->ttm.cached_io_st = dst_st;
>>>> obj->ttm.get_io_page.sg_pos = dst_st->sgl;
>>>> obj->ttm.get_io_page.sg_idx = 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + i915_ttm_adjust_gem_after_move(obj);
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static int i915_ttm_io_mem_reserve(struct ttm_device *bdev, struct ttm_resource *mem)
>>>> {
>>>> - if (mem->mem_type < I915_PL_LMEM0)
>>>> + if (!cpu_maps_iomem(mem))
>>>> return 0;
>>>>
>>>> mem->bus.caching = ttm_write_combined;
>>>> @@ -421,6 +471,16 @@ static int i915_ttm_get_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> return ret == -ENOSPC ? -ENXIO : ret;
>>>>
>>>> + i915_ttm_adjust_lru(obj);
>>>> + if (bo->ttm && !ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm)) {
>>>> + ret = ttm_tt_populate(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, &ctx);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + i915_ttm_adjust_domains_after_cpu_move(obj);
>>>> + i915_ttm_adjust_gem_after_move(obj);
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> /* Object either has a page vector or is an iomem object */
>>>> st = bo->ttm ? i915_ttm_tt_get_st(bo->ttm) : obj->ttm.cached_io_st;
>>>> if (IS_ERR(st))
>>>> @@ -428,8 +488,6 @@ static int i915_ttm_get_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
>>>>
>>>> __i915_gem_object_set_pages(obj, st, i915_sg_dma_sizes(st->sgl));
>>>>
>>>> - i915_ttm_adjust_lru(obj);
>>>> -
>>>> return ret;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -563,6 +621,7 @@ static u64 i915_ttm_mmap_offset(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
>>>>
>>>> const struct drm_i915_gem_object_ops i915_gem_ttm_obj_ops = {
>>>> .name = "i915_gem_object_ttm",
>>>> + .flags = I915_GEM_OBJECT_IS_SHRINKABLE,
>>> We set is_shrinkable for both lmem and smem? Does the current shrinker
>>> work with !shmem? I assume the put_pages() will just discard the page
>>> contents, which is not what we want? Maybe keep this disabled for now?
>>> Or am I missing something?
>> This is to indicate to the gem shrinker that we want to be able to
>> determine dynamically whether the object is shrinkable (by the gem
>> shrinker) or not. (See below). It's intended for the situation where we
>> might want to use shmem to back cached-only ttm objects, and use our own
>> shrinker.
>>
>> But if you think it's better, we could flip that ops flag once we
>> actually have anything shrinkable in place. Let me know what you think.
>> The TTM shmem pool idea becomes a bit doubtful by the fact that
>> allocating some 8GB of system objects, populating and clearing them
>> appears to be some 6X faster with a straightforward alloc approach (like
>> TTM or the "internal" backend) than with shmem...
> I would vote for keeping it turned off for now.
>
>>>> .get_pages = i915_ttm_get_pages,
>>>> .put_pages = i915_ttm_put_pages,
>>>> @@ -599,6 +658,10 @@ int __i915_gem_ttm_object_init(struct intel_memory_region *mem,
>>>> {
>>>> static struct lock_class_key lock_class;
>>>> struct drm_i915_private *i915 = mem->i915;
>>>> + struct ttm_operation_ctx ctx = {
>>>> + .interruptible = true,
>>>> + .no_wait_gpu = false,
>>>> + };
>>>> enum ttm_bo_type bo_type;
>>>> size_t alignment = 0;
>>>> int ret;
>>>> @@ -618,15 +681,14 @@ int __i915_gem_ttm_object_init(struct intel_memory_region *mem,
>>>> i915_gem_object_init(obj, &i915_gem_ttm_obj_ops, &lock_class, flags);
>>>> i915_gem_object_init_memory_region(obj, mem);
>>>> i915_gem_object_make_unshrinkable(obj);
>> Here we set the object to unshrinkable.
> Oh, I totally missed that. But I don't think we are meant to call that
> here, especially with IS_SHRINKABLE, since object_set_pages will later
> make it shrinkable anyway, which looks like fun and games.
Indeed. OK, I'll respin to keep these objects !IS_SHRINKABLE for now.
Need to take a deeper look into that interface...
/Thomas
>> /Thomas
>>
>>
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list