[PATCH 06/23] drm/xe/svm: Introduce a helper to build sg table from hmm range

[Thomas Hellström]

On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 13:35 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 04:49:26PM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 09:00 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 11:55:05AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > > First, the gpu_vma structure is something that partitions the
> > > > gpu_vm
> > > > that holds gpu-related range metadata, like what to mirror,
> > > > desired
> > > > gpu
> > > > caching policies etc. These are managed (created, removed and
> > > > split)
> > > > mainly from user-space. These are stored and looked up from an
> > > > rb-
> > > > tree.
> > > 
> > > Except we are talking about SVA here, so all of this should not
> > > be
> > > exposed to userspace.
> > 
> > I think you are misreading. this is on the level "Mirror this
> > region of
> > the cpu_vm", "prefer this region placed in VRAM", "GPU will do
> > atomic
> > accesses on this region", very similar to cpu mmap / munmap and
> > madvise. What I'm trying to say here is that this does not directly
> > affect the SVA except whether to do SVA or not, and in that case
> > what
> > region of the CPU mm will be mirrored, and in addition, any gpu
> > attributes for the mirrored region.
> 
> SVA is you bind the whole MM and device faults dynamically populate
> the mirror page table. There aren't non-SVA regions. Meta data, like
> you describe, is meta data for the allocation/migration mechanism,
> not
> for the page table or that has anything to do with the SVA mirror
> operation.



> 
> Yes there is another common scheme where you bind a window of CPU to
> a
> window on the device and mirror a fixed range, but this is a quite
> different thing. It is not SVA, it has a fixed range, and it is
> probably bound to a single GPU VMA in a multi-VMA device page table.

And this above here is exactly what we're implementing, and the GPU
page-tables are populated using device faults. Regions (large) of the
mirrored CPU mm need to coexist in the same GPU vm as traditional GPU
buffer objects.

> 
> SVA is not just a whole bunch of windows being dynamically created by
> the OS, that is entirely the wrong mental model. It would be horrible
> to expose to userspace something like that as uAPI. Any hidden SVA
> granules and other implementation specific artifacts must not be made
> visible to userspace!!

Implementation-specific artifacts are not to be made visible to user-
space.

> 
> > > If you use dma_map_sg you get into the world of wrongness where
> > > you
> > > have to track ranges and invalidation has to wipe an entire range
> > > -
> > > because you cannot do a dma unmap of a single page from a
> > > dma_map_sg
> > > mapping. This is all the wrong way to use hmm_range_fault.
> > > 
> > > hmm_range_fault() is page table mirroring, it fundamentally must
> > > be
> > > page-by-page. The target page table structure must have similar
> > > properties to the MM page table - especially page by page
> > > validate/invalidate. Meaning you cannot use dma_map_sg().
> > 
> > To me this is purely an optimization to make the driver page-table
> > and
> > hence the GPU TLB benefit from iommu coalescing / large pages and
> > large
> > driver PTEs.
> 
> This is a different topic. Leon is working on improving the DMA API
> to
> get these kinds of benifits for HMM users. dma_map_sg is not the path
> to get this. Leon's work should be significantly better in terms of
> optimizing IOVA contiguity for a GPU use case. You can get a
> guaranteed DMA contiguity at your choosen granual level, even up to
> something like 512M.
> 
> > It is true that invalidation will sometimes shoot down
> > large gpu ptes unnecessarily but it will not put any additional
> > burden
> > on the core AFAICT. 
> 
> In my experience people doing performance workloads don't enable the
> IOMMU due to the high performance cost, so while optimizing iommu
> coalescing is sort of interesting, it is not as important as using
> the
> APIs properly and not harming the much more common situation when
> there is no iommu and there is no artificial contiguity.
> 
> > on invalidation since zapping the gpu PTEs effectively stops any
> > dma
> > accesses. The dma mappings are rebuilt on the next gpu pagefault,
> > which, as you mention, are considered slow anyway, but will
> > probably
> > still reuse the same prefault region, hence needing to rebuild the
> > dma
> > mappings anyway.
> 
> This is bad too. The DMA should not remain mapped after pages have
> been freed, it completely destroys the concept of IOMMU enforced DMA
> security and the ACPI notion of untrusted external devices.

Hmm. Yes, good point.

> 
> > So as long as we are correct and do not adversely affect core mm,
> > If
> > the gpu performance (for whatever reason) is severely hampered if
> > large gpu page-table-entries are not used, couldn't this be
> > considered
> > left to the driver?
> 
> Please use the APIs properly. We are trying to improve the DMA API to
> better support HMM users, and doing unnecessary things like this in
> drivers is only harmful to that kind of consolidation.
> 
> There is nothing stopping getting large GPU page table entries for
> large CPU page table entries.
> 
> > And a related question. What about THP pages? OK to set up a single
> > dma-mapping to those?
> 
> Yes, THP is still a page and dma_map_page() will map it.

OK great. This is probably sufficient for the performance concern for
now.

Thanks,
Thomas

>  
> > > > That's why finer-granularity mmu_interval notifiers might be
> > > > beneficial
> > > > (and then cached for future re-use of the same prefault range).
> > > > This
> > > > leads me to the next question:
> > > 
> > > It is not the design, please don't invent crazy special Intel
> > > things
> > > on top of hmm_range_fault.
> > 
> > For the record, this is not a "crazy special Intel" invention. It's
> > the
> > way all GPU implementations do this so far.
> 
> "all GPU implementations" you mean AMD, and AMD predates alot of the
> modern versions of this infrastructure IIRC.
> 
> > > Why would a prefetch have anything to do with a VMA? Ie your app
> > > calls
> > > malloc() and gets a little allocation out of a giant mmap() arena
> > > -
> > > you want to prefault the entire arena? Does that really make any
> > > sense?
> > 
> > Personally, no it doesn't. I'd rather use some sort of fixed-size
> > chunk. But to rephrase, the question was more into the strong
> > "drivers
> > should not be aware of the cpu mm vma structures" comment. 
> 
> But this is essentially why - there is nothing useful the driver can
> possibly learn from the CPU VMA to drive
> hmm_range_fault(). hmm_range_fault already has to walk the VMA's if
> someday something is actually needed it needs to be integrated in a
> general way, not by having the driver touch vmas directly.
> 
> Jason