[PATCH v4 01/30] drm/xe: Lock all gpuva ops during VM bind IOCTL
Matthew Brost
matthew.brost at intel.com
Tue Mar 12 01:29:35 UTC 2024
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 04:02:28PM -0600, Zeng, Oak wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brost, Matthew <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 3:49 PM
> > To: Zeng, Oak <oak.zeng at intel.com>
> > Cc: intel-xe at lists.freedesktop.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/30] drm/xe: Lock all gpuva ops during VM bind IOCTL
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 11:44:00AM -0600, Zeng, Oak wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Intel-xe <intel-xe-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of
> > Matthew
> > > > Brost
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 12:08 AM
> > > > To: intel-xe at lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > Cc: Brost, Matthew <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > > > Subject: [PATCH v4 01/30] drm/xe: Lock all gpuva ops during VM bind IOCTL
> > > >
> > > > Lock all gpuva ops
> > >
> > > Can we have a better wording? Better to say locking all Bos used in gpuva ops?
> > >
> > > Or maybe lock ops by locking and validating all Bos used in ops.
> > >
> > > and validate all BOs in a single step durin the VM
> >
> >
> > Lock all BOs used in gpuva ops and validate all BOs in a single step
> > during the VM bind IOCTL?
>
> Yes, that looks better.
>
> >
> > > > bind IOCTL. This help with the transition to making all gpuva ops in a
> > > > VM bind IOCTL a single atomic job.
> > >
> > > Can you also explain, why you want bind to be a atomic job?
> > >
> > > My guess is, bind ioctl can end up with a series of operations, if some (not all) of
> > those operations fail in the middle, it is hard to revert the successful operations
> > before failure.
> >
> > Yes, exactly. It is ensure if we fail at some point in the bind IOCTL
> > (e.g. memory allocation failure) we can unwind to the initial state.
> > Also another benefit is we get 1 fence per IOCTL which is installed
> > dma-resv slots and returned to the user via out-syncs. Lastly, it
> > logically makes sense that 1 IOCTL translates to 1 job.
> >
> > The cover letter at some point explained this. I add something in the
> > next rev.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c | 142 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > --
> > > > 1 file changed, 101 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
> > > > index 643b3701a738..3b5dc6de07f7 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
> > > > @@ -413,19 +413,23 @@ int __xe_vm_userptr_needs_repin(struct xe_vm
> > *vm)
> > > >
> > > > #define XE_VM_REBIND_RETRY_TIMEOUT_MS 1000
> > > >
> > > > -static void xe_vm_kill(struct xe_vm *vm)
> > > > +static void xe_vm_kill(struct xe_vm *vm, bool unlocked)
> > > > {
> > > > struct xe_exec_queue *q;
> > > >
> > > > lockdep_assert_held(&vm->lock);
> > > >
> > > > - xe_vm_lock(vm, false);
> > > > + if (unlocked)
> > > > + xe_vm_lock(vm, false);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Can you explain why we need xe_vm_lock in the first place here?
> > >
> > > My understanding is, xe_vm_lock protect gpu page table update. Below kill
> > function eventually calls into guc_exec_queue_kill where I don't see any page
> > table operation there. So I doubt whether we need the lock in the first place.
> > >
> >
> > I think it it protect vm->preempt.exec_queues list but that could
> > probably be reworked. For this series I'd rather leave the locking as is
> > and then in follow up rework the locking a bit and fully document it.
>
> Isn't that vm->pre-empt.exec_queues is protected by vm::lock (the rw) semaphore? Xe_vm_lock here is vm's dma resv.
>
It isn't really all that clear but since this is in the existing code
let's just leave it until we rework / document the locking.
I'll likely add a new patch in next rev at the end of the series which
works on the locking a bit...
> I agree we can rework those locks later.
>
>
> >
> > > > vm->flags |= XE_VM_FLAG_BANNED;
> > > > trace_xe_vm_kill(vm);
> > > >
> > > > list_for_each_entry(q, &vm->preempt.exec_queues, compute.link)
> > > > q->ops->kill(q);
> > > > - xe_vm_unlock(vm);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (unlocked)
> > > > + xe_vm_unlock(vm);
> > > >
> > > > /* TODO: Inform user the VM is banned */
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -621,7 +625,7 @@ static void preempt_rebind_work_func(struct
> > work_struct
> > > > *w)
> > > >
> > > > if (err) {
> > > > drm_warn(&vm->xe->drm, "VM worker error: %d\n", err);
> > > > - xe_vm_kill(vm);
> > > > + xe_vm_kill(vm, true);
> > > > }
> > > > up_write(&vm->lock);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1831,17 +1835,9 @@ static int xe_vm_bind(struct xe_vm *vm, struct
> > xe_vma
> > > > *vma, struct xe_exec_queue
> > > > u32 num_syncs, bool immediate, bool first_op,
> > > > bool last_op)
> > > > {
> > > > - int err;
> > > > -
> > > > xe_vm_assert_held(vm);
> > > > xe_bo_assert_held(bo);
> > > >
> > > > - if (bo && immediate) {
> > > > - err = xe_bo_validate(bo, vm, true);
> > > > - if (err)
> > > > - return err;
> > > > - }
> > > > -
> > > > return __xe_vm_bind(vm, vma, q, syncs, num_syncs, immediate,
> > first_op,
> > > > last_op);
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -2488,17 +2484,12 @@ static int vm_bind_ioctl_ops_parse(struct xe_vm
> > *vm,
> > > > struct xe_exec_queue *q,
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -static int op_execute(struct drm_exec *exec, struct xe_vm *vm,
> > > > - struct xe_vma *vma, struct xe_vma_op *op)
> > > > +static int op_execute(struct xe_vm *vm, struct xe_vma *vma,
> > > > + struct xe_vma_op *op)
> > > > {
> > > > int err;
> > > >
> > > > lockdep_assert_held_write(&vm->lock);
> > > > -
> > > > - err = xe_vm_prepare_vma(exec, vma, 1);
> > > > - if (err)
> > > > - return err;
> > > > -
> > > > xe_vm_assert_held(vm);
> > > > xe_bo_assert_held(xe_vma_bo(vma));
> > > >
> > > > @@ -2579,19 +2570,10 @@ static int op_execute(struct drm_exec *exec,
> > struct
> > > > xe_vm *vm,
> > > > static int __xe_vma_op_execute(struct xe_vm *vm, struct xe_vma *vma,
> > > > struct xe_vma_op *op)
> > > > {
> > > > - struct drm_exec exec;
> > > > int err;
> > > >
> > > > retry_userptr:
> > > > - drm_exec_init(&exec, DRM_EXEC_INTERRUPTIBLE_WAIT, 0);
> > > > - drm_exec_until_all_locked(&exec) {
> > > > - err = op_execute(&exec, vm, vma, op);
> > > > - drm_exec_retry_on_contention(&exec);
> > > > - if (err)
> > > > - break;
> > > > - }
> > > > - drm_exec_fini(&exec);
> > > > -
> > > > + err = op_execute(vm, vma, op);
> > > > if (err == -EAGAIN) {
> > > > lockdep_assert_held_write(&vm->lock);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -2756,29 +2738,107 @@ static void vm_bind_ioctl_ops_unwind(struct
> > xe_vm
> > > > *vm,
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static int vma_lock(struct drm_exec *exec, struct xe_vma *vma, bool
> > validate)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct xe_bo *bo = xe_vma_bo(vma);
> > > > + int err = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (bo) {
> > > > + if (!bo->vm)
> > > > + err = drm_exec_prepare_obj(exec, &bo->ttm.base, 1);
> > > > + if (!err && validate)
> > > > + err = xe_bo_validate(bo, xe_vma_vm(vma), true);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return err;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int op_lock(struct drm_exec *exec, struct xe_vm *vm,
> > > > + struct xe_vma_op *op)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int err = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + switch (op->base.op) {
> > > > + case DRM_GPUVA_OP_MAP:
> > > > + err = vma_lock(exec, op-
> > >map.vma, !xe_vm_in_fault_mode(vm));
> > > > + break;
> > > > + case DRM_GPUVA_OP_REMAP:
> > > > + err = vma_lock(exec, gpuva_to_vma(op->base.remap.unmap-
> > >va),
> > > > + false);
> > > > + if (!err && op->remap.prev)
> > > > + err = vma_lock(exec, op->remap.prev, true);
> > > > + if (!err && op->remap.next)
> > > > + err = vma_lock(exec, op->remap.next, true);
> > > > + break;
> > > > + case DRM_GPUVA_OP_UNMAP:
> > > > + err = vma_lock(exec, gpuva_to_vma(op->base.unmap.va), false);
> > > > + break;
> > > > + case DRM_GPUVA_OP_PREFETCH:
> > > > + err = vma_lock(exec, gpuva_to_vma(op->base.prefetch.va),
> > true);
> > > > + break;
> > > > + default:
> > > > + drm_warn(&vm->xe->drm, "NOT POSSIBLE");
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return err;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int vm_bind_ioctl_ops_lock(struct drm_exec *exec,
> > > > + struct xe_vm *vm,
> > > > + struct list_head *ops_list)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct xe_vma_op *op;
> > > > + int err;
> > > > +
> > > > + err = drm_exec_prepare_obj(exec, xe_vm_obj(vm), 1);
> > > > + if (err)
> > > > + return err;
> > > > +
> > > > + list_for_each_entry(op, ops_list, link) {
> > > > + err = op_lock(exec, vm, op);
> > > > + if (err)
> > > > + return err;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static int vm_bind_ioctl_ops_execute(struct xe_vm *vm,
> > > > struct list_head *ops_list)
> > > > {
> > > > + struct drm_exec exec;
> > > > struct xe_vma_op *op, *next;
> > > > int err;
> > > >
> > > > lockdep_assert_held_write(&vm->lock);
> > > >
> > > > - list_for_each_entry_safe(op, next, ops_list, link) {
> > > > - err = xe_vma_op_execute(vm, op);
> > > > - if (err) {
> > > > - drm_warn(&vm->xe->drm, "VM op(%d) failed with %d",
> > > > - op->base.op, err);
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * FIXME: Killing VM rather than proper error handling
> > > > - */
> > > > - xe_vm_kill(vm);
> > > > - return -ENOSPC;
> > > > + drm_exec_init(&exec, DRM_EXEC_INTERRUPTIBLE_WAIT |
> > > > + DRM_EXEC_IGNORE_DUPLICATES, 0);
> > > > + drm_exec_until_all_locked(&exec) {
> > > > + err = vm_bind_ioctl_ops_lock(&exec, vm, ops_list);
> > > > + drm_exec_retry_on_contention(&exec);
> > > > + if (err)
> > > > + goto unlock;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Do you need below ops inside the drm_exec_until_all_locked loop? After you
> > locked all objects, you can close the drm_exec_until_all_locked loop, then
> > perform below out of drm_exec_until_all_locked loop.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, xe_vma_op_execute can GPU allocate memory. GPU memory allocations
> > can trigger evictions which try to grab more locks. Once the
> > drm_exec_until_all_locked loop is broken we are not allowed try grab
> > more locks.
>
> I see. So you need xe_vma_op_execute in the drm_exec_until_all_locked loop to grab more locks.
>
Yes.
>
> Also eventually on memory allocations I think we will pass
> > in drm_exec state so the looking can hook into that.
>
> Then I guess you need a exec parameter in xe_vma_op_execute, so eventually you can grab more locks in memory allocation?
>
This gets reworkeed later in the series where xe_vma_ops is passed
around everywhere (VM, migrate, and PT layers) and we should probably
includd the drm_exec as a member of xe_vma_ops.
Matt
> Oak
>
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > > Oak
> > >
> > > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(op, next, ops_list, link) {
> > > > + err = xe_vma_op_execute(vm, op);
> > > > + if (err) {
> > > > + drm_warn(&vm->xe->drm, "VM op(%d) failed
> > > > with %d",
> > > > + op->base.op, err);
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * FIXME: Killing VM rather than proper error
> > > > handling
> > > > + */
> > > > + xe_vm_kill(vm, false);
> > > > + err = -ENOSPC;
> > > > + goto unlock;
> > > > + }
> > > > + xe_vma_op_cleanup(vm, op);
> > > > }
> > > > - xe_vma_op_cleanup(vm, op);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - return 0;
> > > > +unlock:
> > > > + drm_exec_fini(&exec);
> > > > + return err;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > #define SUPPORTED_FLAGS (DRM_XE_VM_BIND_FLAG_NULL | \
> > > > --
> > > > 2.34.1
> > >
More information about the Intel-xe
mailing list