[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] vc4: Mark BOs as purgeable when they enter the BO cache

[Boris Brezillon]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:03:15 +0200
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:41:52 -0700
> Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net> wrote:
> 
> > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com> writes:
> >   
> > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:15:23 -0700
> > > Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net> wrote:
> > >    
> > >> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com> writes:
> > >>     
> > >> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:24:16 +0100
> > >> > Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> >      
> > >> >> Quoting Boris Brezillon (2017-09-27 15:06:53)      
> > >> >> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:50:10 +0100
> > >> >> > Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> >> >         
> > >> >> > > Quoting Boris Brezillon (2017-09-27 14:45:17)        
> > >> >> > > >  static struct vc4_bo *
> > >> >> > > >  vc4_bo_from_cache(struct vc4_screen *screen, uint32_t size, const char *name)
> > >> >> > > >  {
> > >> >> > > > @@ -111,6 +121,11 @@ vc4_bo_from_cache(struct vc4_screen *screen, uint32_t size, const char *name)
> > >> >> > > >                          return NULL;
> > >> >> > > >                  }
> > >> >> > > >  
> > >> >> > > > +                if (vc4_bo_purgeable(bo, false)) {
> > >> >> > > > +                        mtx_unlock(&cache->lock);
> > >> >> > > > +                        return NULL;          
> > >> >> > > 
> > >> >> > > So this would just mean that the bo was purged in the meantime. Why not
> > >> >> > > just try to use the next one in the cache or allocate afresh?        
> > >> >> > 
> > >> >> > No, this means the BO was purged and the kernel failed to allocate the
> > >> >> > memory back. We don't care about the retained status here, because we
> > >> >> > don't need to restore BO's content, that's why we're not checking
> > >> >> > arg.retained in vc4_bo_purgeable(). Allocating a fresh BO is likely to
> > >> >> > fail with the same ENOMEM error because both path use the CMA mem.        
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> Hmm, you don't treat purging as permanent. But you do track the lose of
> > >> >> contents, so retained is false?      
> > >> >
> > >> > vc4_bo_purgeable() is not reporting the retained status, it just
> > >> > reports whether the BO can be used or not. I can change
> > >> > vc4_bo_purgeable() semantic to return 1 if the BO content was retained,
> > >> > 0 if it was purged and -1 if you the ioctl returned an error (ENOMEM)
> > >> > if you prefer, but in the end, all I'll check here is
> > >> > 'vc4_bo_purgeable() >= 0' because I don't don't care about the retained
> > >> > status in this specific use case, all I care about is whether the BO can
> > >> > be re-used or not (IOW, is there a valid CMA region attached to the BO).
> > >> >      
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> I took a harder line, and said that userspace should recreate the object
> > >> >> from scratch after it was purged. I thought that would be easier
> > >> >> overall. But maybe not.:)      
> > >> >
> > >> > Well, maybe I'm wrong in how I implemented this
> > >> > DRM_IOCTL_VC4_GEM_MADVISE ioctl, but right now, when the BO has been
> > >> > purged and someone marks it back as unpurgeable I'm trying to
> > >> > re-allocate BO's buffer in the ioctl path, and if the CMA allocation
> > >> > fails I return -ENOMEM. I could move the allocation in the fault
> > >> > handler, but this would result in pretty much the same behavior except
> > >> > it would require an extra page-fault to realize the memory is not
> > >> > available or force us to check the retained status and decide to
> > >> > release the BO object from the BO cache.      
> > >> 
> > >> Hmm.  The downside I see to this plan is if we eventually decide to have
> > >> the purge operation not clear all the BOs, then we would probably rather
> > >> have userspace freeing objects that had been purged until it finds one
> > >> in the cache that hadn't been purged, rather than forcing reallocation
> > >> of this BO now (and possibly then purging something from elsewhere in
> > >> the cache).    
> > >
> > > Okay, that's a good reason to move dma_alloc_wc() in the page-fault
> > > path. I need to change a bit the implementation to check cma_gem->vaddr
> > > value instead of checking bo->madv != __VC4_MADV_PURGED, otherwise we
> > > might pass a non-allocated BO to the GPU/Display-Engine.    
> > 
> > Huh, allocation in the page-fault path?  We would need the storage to be
> > definitely be available at the point that we've set it back to WILLNEED.
> > Otherwise I'll "allocate" the BO from the cache, go to fill it through
> > my mapping, and sigbus when CMA says we're out of memory.  
> 
> Yep, I find that weird too, but that's unfortunately the only way we can
> achieve what you want to do.
> 
> The only solution to know the ->retained status is by asking the the DRM
> driver to put the BO in WILLNEED or DONTNEED state. If you send ->madv
> = DONTNEED, and the kernel returns ->retained = true, this ->retained
> state may not be valid anymore when you get back to the application,
> because someone else may have triggered a purge. If you send ->madv =
> WILLNEED then the ->retained state is guaranteed to be valid until you
> explicitly switch back to DONTNEED, but that also means the driver has
> already allocated the memory if ->retained is false, so it's already
> too late to do what you were suggesting (evict the BO from the
> userspace cache to avoid purging other purgeable BOs).

Another solution to this problem would be to add a new
WILLNEED_IF_NOT_PURGED state that would instruct the driver to only
flag the BO as WILLNEED if it's not been purged already.