[Intel-xe] [RFC PATCH 08/10] dma-buf/dma-fence: Introduce long-running completion fences

Tue Apr 4 19:25:52 UTC 2023

On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 07:02:23PM +0000, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 08:14:01PM +0200, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
> > 
> > On 4/4/23 15:10, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 04.04.23 um 14:54 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> > > > Hi, Christian,
> > > > 
> > > > On 4/4/23 11:09, Christian König wrote:
> > > > > Am 04.04.23 um 02:22 schrieb Matthew Brost:
> > > > > > From: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For long-running workloads, drivers either need to open-code
> > > > > > completion
> > > > > > waits, invent their own synchronization primitives or internally use
> > > > > > dma-fences that do not obey the cross-driver dma-fence protocol, but
> > > > > > without any lockdep annotation all these approaches are error prone.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So since for example the drm scheduler uses dma-fences it is
> > > > > > desirable for
> > > > > > a driver to be able to use it for throttling and error
> > > > > > handling also with
> > > > > > internal dma-fences tha do not obey the cros-driver
> > > > > > dma-fence protocol.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Introduce long-running completion fences in form of
> > > > > > dma-fences, and add
> > > > > > lockdep annotation for them. In particular:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > * Do not allow waiting under any memory management locks.
> > > > > > * Do not allow to attach them to a dma-resv object.
> > > > > > * Introduce a new interface for adding callbacks making the
> > > > > > helper adding
> > > > > >    a callback sign off on that it is aware that the dma-fence may not
> > > > > >    complete anytime soon. Typically this will be the
> > > > > > scheduler chaining
> > > > > >    a new long-running fence on another one.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well that's pretty much what I tried before:
> > > > > https://lwn.net/Articles/893704/
> > > > > 
> 
> I don't think this quite the same, this explictly enforces that we don't
> break the dma-fence rules (in path of memory allocations, exported in
> any way), essentially this just SW sync point reusing dma-fence the
> infrastructure for signaling / callbacks. I believe your series tried to
> export these fences to user space (admittedly I haven't fully read your
> series).
> 
> In this use case we essentially just want to flow control the ring via
> the dma-scheduler + maintain a list of pending jobs so the TDR can be
> used for cleanup if LR entity encounters an error. To me this seems
> perfectly reasonable but I know dma-femce rules are akin to a holy war.
> 
> If we return NULL in run_job, now we have to be able to sink all jobs
> in the backend regardless on ring space, maintain a list of jobs pending
> for cleanup after errors, and write a different cleanup path as now the
> TDR doesn't work. Seems very, very silly to duplicate all of this code
> when the DRM scheduler provides all of this for us. Also if we go this
> route, now all drivers are going to invent ways to handle LR jobs /w the
> DRM scheduler.
> 
> This solution is pretty clear, mark the scheduler as LR, and don't
> export any fences from the scheduler. If you try to export these fences
> a blow up happens.

The problem is if you mix things up. Like for resets you need all the
schedulers on an engine/set-of-engines to quiescent or things get
potentially hilarious. If you now have a scheduler in forever limbo, the
dma_fence guarantees are right out the window.

But the issue you're having is fairly specific if it's just about
ringspace. I think the dumbest fix is to just block in submit if you run
out of per-ctx ringspace, and call it a day. This notion that somehow the
kernel is supposed to provide a bottomless queue of anything userspace
submits simply doesn't hold up in reality (as much as userspace standards
committees would like it to), and as long as it doesn't have a real-world
perf impact it doesn't really matter why we end up blocking in the submit
ioctl. It might also be a simple memory allocation that hits a snag in
page reclaim.

> > > > > And the reasons why it was rejected haven't changed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Christian.
> > > > > 
> > > > Yes, TBH this was mostly to get discussion going how we'd best
> > > > tackle this problem while being able to reuse the scheduler for
> > > > long-running workloads.
> > > > 
> > > > I couldn't see any clear decision on your series, though, but one
> > > > main difference I see is that this is intended for driver-internal
> > > > use only. (I'm counting using the drm_scheduler as a helper for
> > > > driver-private use). This is by no means a way to try tackle the
> > > > indefinite fence problem.
> > > 
> > > Well this was just my latest try to tackle this, but essentially the
> > > problems are the same as with your approach: When we express such
> > > operations as dma_fence there is always the change that we leak that
> > > somewhere.
> > > 
> > > My approach of adding a flag noting that this operation is dangerous and
> > > can't be synced with something memory management depends on tried to
> > > contain this as much as possible, but Daniel still pretty clearly
> > > rejected it (for good reasons I think).
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > We could ofc invent a completely different data-type that abstracts
> > > > the synchronization the scheduler needs in the long-running case, or
> > > > each driver could hack something up, like sleeping in the
> > > > prepare_job() or run_job() callback for throttling, but those waits
> > > > should still be annotated in one way or annotated one way or another
> > > > (and probably in a similar way across drivers) to make sure we don't
> > > > do anything bad.
> > > > 
> > > >  So any suggestions as to what would be the better solution here
> > > > would be appreciated.
> > > 
> > > Mhm, do we really the the GPU scheduler for that?
> > > 
> 
> I think we need to solve this within the DRM scheduler one way or
> another.

Yeah so if we conclude that the queue really must be bottomless then I
agree drm-sched should help out sort out the mess. Because I'm guessing
that every driver will have this issue. But that's a big if.

I guess if we teach the drm scheduler that some jobs are fairly endless
then maybe it wouldn't be too far-fetched to also teach it to wait for a
previous one to finish (but not with the dma_fence that preempts, which we
put into the dma_resv for memory management, but some other struct
completion). The scheduler already has a concept of not stuffing too much
stuff into the same queue after all, so this should fit?
-Daniel

> > > I mean in the 1 to 1 case  you basically just need a component which
> > > collects the dependencies as dma_fence and if all of them are fulfilled
> > > schedules a work item.
> > > 
> > > As long as the work item itself doesn't produce a dma_fence it can then
> > > still just wait for other none dma_fence dependencies.
> > > 
> > > Then the work function could submit the work and wait for the result.
> > > 
> > > The work item would then pretty much represent what you want, you can
> > > wait for it to finish and pass it along as long running dependency.
> > > 
> > > Maybe give it a funky name and wrap it up in a structure, but that's
> > > basically it.
> > > 
> > This very much sounds like a i915_sw_fence for the dependency tracking and
> > dma_fence_work for the actual work although it's completion fence is a
> > dma_fence.
> >
> 
> Agree this does sound to i915ish as stated below one of mandates in Xe
> was to use the DRM scheduler. Beyond that as someone who a submission
> backend in the i915 and Xe, I love how the DRM scheduler works (single
> entry point), it makes everything so much easier.
> 
> Matt
> 
> > Although that goes against the whole idea of a condition for merging the xe
> > driver would be that we implement some sort of minimal scaffolding for
> > long-running workloads in the drm scheduler, and the thinking behind that is
> > to avoid implementing intel-specific solutions like those...
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Thomas
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Christian.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > Thomas
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 

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