[PATCH v6 2/2] drm/xe/lnl: Offload system clear page activity to GPU

Thomas Hellström thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com
Tue Aug 20 13:36:45 UTC 2024


Hi, Nirmoy,

On Mon, 2024-08-19 at 18:01 +0200, Nirmoy Das wrote:
> 
> On 8/19/2024 1:05 PM, Matthew Auld wrote:
> > On 16/08/2024 14:51, Nirmoy Das wrote:
> > > On LNL because of flat CCS, driver creates migrates job to clear
> > > CCS meta data. Extend that to also clear system pages using GPU.
> > > Inform TTM to allocate pages without __GFP_ZERO to avoid double
> > > page
> > > clearing by clearing out TTM_TT_FLAG_ZERO_ALLOC flag and set
> > > TTM_TT_FLAG_CLEARED_ON_FREE while freeing to skip ttm pool's
> > > clear
> > > on free as XE now takes care of clearing pages. If a bo is in
> > > system
> > > placement such as BO created with
> > > DRM_XE_GEM_CREATE_FLAG_DEFER_BACKING
> > > and there is a cpu map then for such BO gpu clear will be avoided
> > > as
> > > there is no dma mapping for such BO at that moment to create
> > > migration
> > > jobs.
> > > 
> > > Tested this patch api_overhead_benchmark_l0 from
> > > https://github.com/intel/compute-benchmarks
> > > 
> > > Without the patch:
> > > api_overhead_benchmark_l0 --testFilter=UsmMemoryAllocation:
> > > UsmMemoryAllocation(api=l0 type=Host size=4KB) 84.206 us
> > > UsmMemoryAllocation(api=l0 type=Host size=1GB) 105775.56 us
> > > erf tool top 5 entries:
> > > 71.44% api_overhead_be  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] clear_page_erms
> > > 6.34%  api_overhead_be  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k]
> > > __pageblock_pfn_to_page
> > > 2.24%  api_overhead_be  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] cpa_flush
> > > 2.15%  api_overhead_be  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k]
> > > pages_are_mergeable
> > > 1.94%  api_overhead_be  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k]
> > > find_next_iomem_res
> > > 
> > > With the patch:
> > > api_overhead_benchmark_l0 --testFilter=UsmMemoryAllocation:
> > > UsmMemoryAllocation(api=l0 type=Host size=4KB) 79.439 us
> > > UsmMemoryAllocation(api=l0 type=Host size=1GB) 98677.75 us
> > > Perf tool top 5 entries:
> > > 11.16% api_overhead_be  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k]
> > > __pageblock_pfn_to_page
> > > 7.85%  api_overhead_be  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] cpa_flush
> > > 7.59%  api_overhead_be  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k]
> > > find_next_iomem_res
> > > 7.24%  api_overhead_be  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k]
> > > pages_are_mergeable
> > > 5.53%  api_overhead_be  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] 
> > > lookup_address_in_pgd_attr
> > > 
> > > Without this patch clear_page_erms() dominates execution time
> > > which is
> > > also not pipelined with migration jobs. With this patch page
> > > clearing
> > > will get pipelined with migration job and will free CPU for more
> > > work.
> > > 
> > > v2: Handle regression on dgfx(Himal)
> > >      Update commit message as no ttm API changes needed.
> > > v3: Fix Kunit test.
> > > v4: handle data leak on cpu mmap(Thomas)
> > > v5: s/gpu_page_clear/gpu_page_clear_sys and move setting
> > >      it to xe_ttm_sys_mgr_init() and other nits (Matt Auld)
> > > v6: Disable it when init_on_alloc and/or init_on_free is
> > > active(Matt)
> > >      Use compute-benchmarks as reporter used it to report this
> > >      allocation latency issue also a proper test application than
> > > mime.
> > >      In v5, the test showed significant reduction in alloc
> > > latency but
> > >      that is not the case any more, I think this was mostly
> > > because
> > >      previous test was done on IFWI which had low mem BW from
> > > CPU.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Himal Prasad Ghimiray <himal.prasad.ghimiray at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > > Cc: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das at intel.com>
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
> 
> 
> Thanks Matt.
> 
> Pushed this to drm-xe-next. The series contains a ttm pool change
> which 
> as agreed with Christian
> 
> is small enough to not cause any issue so can be pulled though drm-
> xe-next.

I have a question that was sent as a reply-to on that patch.

Thanks,
Thomas

> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nirmoy
> 



More information about the Intel-xe mailing list