[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: audit bo->resource usage

[Christian König]

Am 31.08.22 um 14:50 schrieb Matthew Auld:
> On 31/08/2022 13:35, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 31.08.22 um 14:06 schrieb Matthew Auld:
>>> On 31/08/2022 12:03, Christian König wrote:
>>>> Am 31.08.22 um 12:37 schrieb Matthew Auld:
>>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That hopefully just leaves i915_ttm_shrink(), which is swapping 
>>>>>>> out shmem ttm_tt and is calling ttm_bo_validate() with empty 
>>>>>>> placements to force the pipeline-gutting path, which importantly 
>>>>>>> unpopulates the ttm_tt for us (since ttm_tt_unpopulate is not 
>>>>>>> exported it seems). But AFAICT it looks like that will now also 
>>>>>>> nuke the bo->resource, instead of just leaving it in system 
>>>>>>> memory. My assumption is that when later calling 
>>>>>>> ttm_bo_validate(), it will just do the bo_move_null() in 
>>>>>>> i915_ttm_move(), instead of re-populating the ttm_tt and then 
>>>>>>> potentially copying it back to local-memory?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well you do ttm_bo_validate() with something like GTT domain, 
>>>>>> don't you? This should result in re-populating the tt object, but 
>>>>>> I'm not 100% sure if that really works as expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAIK for domains we either have system memory (which uses ttm_tt 
>>>>> and might be shmem underneath) or local-memory. But perhaps i915 
>>>>> is doing something wrong here, or abusing TTM in some way. I'm not 
>>>>> sure tbh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I think we have two cases here:
>>>>>
>>>>> - We have some system memory only object. After doing 
>>>>> i915_ttm_shrink(), bo->resource is now NULL. We then call 
>>>>> ttm_bo_validate() at some later point, but here we don't need to 
>>>>> copy anything, but it also looks like ttm_bo_handle_move_mem() 
>>>>> won't populate the ttm_tt or us either, since mem_type == 
>>>>> TTM_PL_SYSTEM. It looks like i915_ttm_move() was taking care of 
>>>>> this, but now we just call ttm_bo_move_null().
>>>>>
>>>>> - We have a local-memory only object, which was evicted to shmem, 
>>>>> and then swapped out by the shrinker like above. The bo->resource 
>>>>> is NULL. However this time when calling ttm_bo_validate() we need 
>>>>> to actually do a copy in i915_ttm_move(), as well as re-populate 
>>>>> the ttm_tt. i915_ttm_move() was taking care of this, but now we 
>>>>> just call ttm_bo_move_null().
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps i915 is doing something wrong in the above two cases?
>>>>
>>>> Mhm, as far as I can see that should still work.
>>>>
>>>> See previously you should got a transition from SYSTEM->GTT in 
>>>> i915_ttm_move() to re-create your backing store. Not you get 
>>>> NULL->SYSTEM which is handled by ttm_bo_move_null() and then 
>>>> SYSTEM->GTT.
>>>
>>> What is GTT here in TTM world? Also I'm not seeing where there is 
>>> this SYSTEM->GTT transition? Maybe I'm blind. Just to be clear, i915 
>>> is only calling ttm_bo_validate() once when acquiring the pages, and 
>>> we don't call it again, unless it was evicted (and potentially 
>>> swapped out).
>>
>> Well GTT means TTM_PL_TT.
>>
>> And calling it only once is perfectly fine, TTM will internally see 
>> that we need two hops to reach TTM_PL_TT and so does the NULL->SYSTEM 
>> transition and then SYSTEM->TT.
>
> Ah interesting, so that's what the multi-hop thing does. But AFAICT 
> i915 is not using either TTM_PL_TT or -EMULTIHOP.

Mhm, it could be that we then have a problem and the i915 driver only 
sees NULL->TT directly. But I really don't know the i915 driver code 
good enough to judge that.

Can you take a look at this and test it maybe?

>
> Also what is the difference between TTM_PL_TT and TM_PL_SYSTEM? When 
> should you use one over the other?

TTM_PL_SYSTEM means the device is not accessing the buffer and TTM has 
the control over the backing store and can swapout/swapin as it wants it.

TTM_PL_TT means that the device is accessing the data (TT stands for 
translation table) and so TTM can't swap the backing store in/out.

TTM_PL_VRAM well that one is obvious.

Thanks,
Christian.

>
>>
>> As far as I can see that should work like it did before.
>>
>> Christian.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you just validated to SYSTEM memory before I think the tt object 
>>>> wouldn't have been populated either.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Christian.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been considering to replacing the ttm_bo_type with a bunch 
>>>>>>>> of behavior flags for a bo. I'm hoping that this will clean 
>>>>>>>> things up a bit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>       caching = i915_ttm_select_tt_caching(obj);
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c 
>>>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index 9a7e50534b84bb..c420d1ab605b6f 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ int i915_ttm_move(struct 
>>>>>>>>>>> ttm_buffer_object *bo, bool evict,
>>>>>>>>>>>       bool clear;
>>>>>>>>>>>       int ret;
>>>>>>>>>>> -    if (GEM_WARN_ON(!obj)) {
>>>>>>>>>>> +    if (GEM_WARN_ON(!obj) || !bo->resource) {
>>>>>>>>>>>           ttm_bo_move_null(bo, dst_mem);
>>>>>>>>>>>           return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>       }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>