if (domain & abo->preferred_domains & AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM &&
-            !(adev->flags & AMD_IS_APU))
-            places[c].flags |= TTM_PL_FLAG_FALLBACK;
+            !(adev->flags & AMD_IS_APU)) {
+            /*
+             * When GTT is just an alternative to VRAM make sure that we +             * only use it as fallback and still try to fill up VRAM first.
+            */
+            if (abo->preferred_domains & AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT)
+                places[c].flags |= TTM_PL_FLAG_FALLBACK;
+            /*
+             * Enable GTT when the threshold of moved bytes is
+             * reached. This prevents any non essential buffer move
+             * when the links are already saturated.
+             */
+            places[c].flags |= TTM_PL_FLAG_MOVE_THRESHOLD;
+        }

For the APU case I *think* this works, but for discrete I am not sure yet.

Agree, APUs are basically already fine as they are. VRAM is just used so that it isn't wasted there.

As a side note and disclaimer, the TTM "resource compatible" logic has a half-life of about one week in my brain until I need to almost re-figure it all out. I don't know if it just me, but I find it really non-intuitive and almost like double, triple, or even quadruple negation way of thinking about things.

Yeah I was also going back and forth between the different approaches multiple times and just ended up in this implementation because it seemed to do what I wanted to have.

It's certainly not very intuitive what's going on here.

It is not helping that with this proposal you set threshold on just one of the possible object placements which further increases the asymmetry. For me intuitive thing would be that thresholds apply to the act of changing the current placement directly. Not indirectly via playing with one of the placement flags dynamically.

Interesting idea, how would the handling then be? Currently we have only the stages - 'don't evict' and 'evict'. Should we make it something more like 'don't move', 'move', 'evict' ?

Anyway, lets see.. So you set TTM_PL_FLAG_MOVE_THRESHOLD and TTM_PL_FLAG_FALLBACK on the GTT placement, with the logic that it will be considered compatible while under the migration budget?

(Side note, the fact both flags are set I also find very difficult to mentally model.)

Say a buffer was evicted to GTT already. What then brings it back to VRAM?

The first subsequent ttm_bo_validate pass (!evicting) says GTT is fine (applicable) while ctx->bytes_moved < ctx->move_threshold, no? Isn't that the opposite of what would be required and causes nothing to be migrated back in? What am I missing?

The flag says that GTT is fine when ctx->bytes_moved >= ctx->move_threshold. The logic is exactly inverted to what you described.

This way a BO will be moved back into VRAM as long as bytes moved doesn't exceed the threshold.

Setting both flags has the effect of saying: It's ok that the BO stays in GTT when you either above the move threshold or would have to evict something.




Reply via email to