[Intel-gfx] [PATCH RESEND v3 2/3] drm/ttm: Reduce the number of used allocation orders for TTM pages
Christian König
christian.koenig at amd.com
Thu Apr 13 09:45:54 UTC 2023
Am 13.04.23 um 10:48 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 16:18, Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com> wrote:
>> Am 12.04.23 um 11:08 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 at 15:45, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 02:11:18PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>>>>> Am 11.04.23 um 11:51 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 10:06:49PM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>>>>>>> When swapping out, we will split multi-order pages both in order to
>>>>>>> move them to the swap-cache and to be able to return memory to the
>>>>>>> swap cache as soon as possible on a page-by-page basis.
>>>>>>> Reduce the page max order to the system PMD size, as we can then be nicer
>>>>>>> to the system and avoid splitting gigantic pages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking forward to when we might be able to swap out PMD size folios
>>>>>>> without splitting, this will also be a benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>>> - Include all orders up to the PMD size (Christian König)
>>>>>>> v3:
>>>>>>> - Avoid compilation errors for architectures with special PFN_SHIFTs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>>>>>> Apparently this fails on ppc build testing. Please supply build fix asap
>>>>>> (or I guess we need to revert). I'm kinda not clear why this only showed
>>>>>> up when I merged the drm-misc-next pr into drm-next ...
>>>>> I'm really wondering this as well. It looks like PMD_SHIFT isn't a constant
>>>>> on this particular platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> But from what I can find in the upstream 6.2 kernel PMD_SHIFT always seems
>>>>> to be a constant.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how exactly can that here break?
>>>> There's some in-flight patches to rework MAX_ORDER and other things in
>>>> linux-next, maybe it's recent? If you check out linux-next then you need
>>>> to reapply the patch (since sfr reverted it).
>>> So I looked and on ppc64 PMD_SHIFT is defined in terms of
>>> PTE_INDEX_SIZE, which is defined (for book3s) in terms of the variable
>>> __pte_index_size. This is in 6.3 already and seems pretty old.
>> Ah! I missed that one, thanks.
>>
>>> So revert? Or fixup patch to make this work on ppc?
>> I think for now just revert or change it so that we check if PMD_SHIFT
>> is a constant.
>>
>> Thomas do you have any quick solution?
> I guess Thomas is on vacations. Can you pls do the revert and push it
> to drm-misc-next-fixes so this won't get lost?
The offending patch hasn't showed up in drm-misc-next-fixes nor
drm-misc-fixes yet. Looks like the branches are lacking behind.
I can revert it on drm-misc-next, but I', not 100% sure that will then
get picked up in time.
Christian.
>
> Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
>
> preemptively for that. Normally I think we could wait a bit more but
> it's really close to merge window PR and I don't like handing too many
> open things to Dave when he's back :-)
> -Daniel
>
>> Christian.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
>>>>>>> index dfce896c4bae..18c342a919a2 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
>>>>>>> @@ -47,6 +47,11 @@
>>>>>>> #include "ttm_module.h"
>>>>>>> +#define TTM_MAX_ORDER (PMD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT)
>>>>>>> +#define __TTM_DIM_ORDER (TTM_MAX_ORDER + 1)
>>>>>>> +/* Some architectures have a weird PMD_SHIFT */
>>>>>>> +#define TTM_DIM_ORDER (__TTM_DIM_ORDER <= MAX_ORDER ? __TTM_DIM_ORDER : MAX_ORDER)
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> /**
>>>>>>> * struct ttm_pool_dma - Helper object for coherent DMA mappings
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> @@ -65,11 +70,11 @@ module_param(page_pool_size, ulong, 0644);
>>>>>>> static atomic_long_t allocated_pages;
>>>>>>> -static struct ttm_pool_type global_write_combined[MAX_ORDER];
>>>>>>> -static struct ttm_pool_type global_uncached[MAX_ORDER];
>>>>>>> +static struct ttm_pool_type global_write_combined[TTM_DIM_ORDER];
>>>>>>> +static struct ttm_pool_type global_uncached[TTM_DIM_ORDER];
>>>>>>> -static struct ttm_pool_type global_dma32_write_combined[MAX_ORDER];
>>>>>>> -static struct ttm_pool_type global_dma32_uncached[MAX_ORDER];
>>>>>>> +static struct ttm_pool_type global_dma32_write_combined[TTM_DIM_ORDER];
>>>>>>> +static struct ttm_pool_type global_dma32_uncached[TTM_DIM_ORDER];
>>>>>>> static spinlock_t shrinker_lock;
>>>>>>> static struct list_head shrinker_list;
>>>>>>> @@ -444,7 +449,7 @@ int ttm_pool_alloc(struct ttm_pool *pool, struct ttm_tt *tt,
>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>> gfp_flags |= GFP_HIGHUSER;
>>>>>>> - for (order = min_t(unsigned int, MAX_ORDER - 1, __fls(num_pages));
>>>>>>> + for (order = min_t(unsigned int, TTM_MAX_ORDER, __fls(num_pages));
>>>>>>> num_pages;
>>>>>>> order = min_t(unsigned int, order, __fls(num_pages))) {
>>>>>>> struct ttm_pool_type *pt;
>>>>>>> @@ -563,7 +568,7 @@ void ttm_pool_init(struct ttm_pool *pool, struct device *dev,
>>>>>>> if (use_dma_alloc) {
>>>>>>> for (i = 0; i < TTM_NUM_CACHING_TYPES; ++i)
>>>>>>> - for (j = 0; j < MAX_ORDER; ++j)
>>>>>>> + for (j = 0; j < TTM_DIM_ORDER; ++j)
>>>>>>> ttm_pool_type_init(&pool->caching[i].orders[j],
>>>>>>> pool, i, j);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> @@ -583,7 +588,7 @@ void ttm_pool_fini(struct ttm_pool *pool)
>>>>>>> if (pool->use_dma_alloc) {
>>>>>>> for (i = 0; i < TTM_NUM_CACHING_TYPES; ++i)
>>>>>>> - for (j = 0; j < MAX_ORDER; ++j)
>>>>>>> + for (j = 0; j < TTM_DIM_ORDER; ++j)
>>>>>>> ttm_pool_type_fini(&pool->caching[i].orders[j]);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> @@ -637,7 +642,7 @@ static void ttm_pool_debugfs_header(struct seq_file *m)
>>>>>>> unsigned int i;
>>>>>>> seq_puts(m, "\t ");
>>>>>>> - for (i = 0; i < MAX_ORDER; ++i)
>>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < TTM_DIM_ORDER; ++i)
>>>>>>> seq_printf(m, " ---%2u---", i);
>>>>>>> seq_puts(m, "\n");
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> @@ -648,7 +653,7 @@ static void ttm_pool_debugfs_orders(struct ttm_pool_type *pt,
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> unsigned int i;
>>>>>>> - for (i = 0; i < MAX_ORDER; ++i)
>>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < TTM_DIM_ORDER; ++i)
>>>>>>> seq_printf(m, " %8u", ttm_pool_type_count(&pt[i]));
>>>>>>> seq_puts(m, "\n");
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> @@ -751,13 +756,16 @@ int ttm_pool_mgr_init(unsigned long num_pages)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> unsigned int i;
>>>>>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(TTM_DIM_ORDER > MAX_ORDER);
>>>>>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(TTM_DIM_ORDER < 1);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> if (!page_pool_size)
>>>>>>> page_pool_size = num_pages;
>>>>>>> spin_lock_init(&shrinker_lock);
>>>>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&shrinker_list);
>>>>>>> - for (i = 0; i < MAX_ORDER; ++i) {
>>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < TTM_DIM_ORDER; ++i) {
>>>>>>> ttm_pool_type_init(&global_write_combined[i], NULL,
>>>>>>> ttm_write_combined, i);
>>>>>>> ttm_pool_type_init(&global_uncached[i], NULL, ttm_uncached, i);
>>>>>>> @@ -790,7 +798,7 @@ void ttm_pool_mgr_fini(void)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> unsigned int i;
>>>>>>> - for (i = 0; i < MAX_ORDER; ++i) {
>>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < TTM_DIM_ORDER; ++i) {
>>>>>>> ttm_pool_type_fini(&global_write_combined[i]);
>>>>>>> ttm_pool_type_fini(&global_uncached[i]);
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 2.39.2
>>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel Vetter
>>>> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
>>>> http://blog.ffwll.ch
>>>
>
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list