> 2020年2月12日 19:53，Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumer...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> Am 12.02.20 um 07:23 schrieb Pan, Xinhui:
>>
>>> 2020年2月11日 23:43，Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumer...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>
>>> When non-imported BOs are resurrected for delayed delete we replace
>>> the dma_resv object to allow for easy reclaiming of the resources.
>>>
>>> v2: move that to ttm_bo_individualize_resv
>>> v3: add a comment to explain what's going on
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: xinhui pan <xinhui....@amd.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>> index bfc42a9e4fb4..8174603d390f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>> @@ -393,6 +393,18 @@ static int ttm_bo_individualize_resv(struct
>>> ttm_buffer_object *bo)
>>>
>>> r = dma_resv_copy_fences(&bo->base._resv, bo->base.resv);
>>> dma_resv_unlock(&bo->base._resv);
>>> + if (r)
>>> + return r;
>>> +
>>> + if (bo->type != ttm_bo_type_sg) {
>>> + /* This works because the BO is about to be destroyed and nobody
>>> + * reference it any more. The only tricky case is the trylock on
>>> + * the resv object while holding the lru_lock.
>>> + */
>>> + spin_lock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
>>> + bo->base.resv = &bo->base._resv;
>>> + spin_unlock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
>>> + }
>>>
>> how about something like that.
>> the basic idea is to do the bo cleanup work in bo release first and avoid
>> any race with evict.
>> As in bo dieing progress, evict also just do bo cleanup work.
>>
>> If bo is busy, neither bo_release nor evict can do cleanupwork on it. For
>> the bo release case, we just add bo back to lru list.
>> So we can clean it up both in workqueue and shrinker as the past way did.
>>
>> @@ -405,8 +405,9 @@ static int ttm_bo_individualize_resv(struct
>> ttm_buffer_object *bo)
>> if (bo->type != ttm_bo_type_sg) {
>> spin_lock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
>> - bo->base.resv = &bo->base._resv;
>> + ttm_bo_del_from_lru(bo);
>> spin_unlock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
>> + bo->base.resv = &bo->base._resv;
>> }
>> return r;
>> @@ -606,10 +607,9 @@ static void ttm_bo_release(struct kref *kref)
>> * shrinkers, now that they are queued for
>> * destruction.
>> */
>> - if (bo->mem.placement & TTM_PL_FLAG_NO_EVICT) {
>> + if (bo->mem.placement & TTM_PL_FLAG_NO_EVICT)
>> bo->mem.placement &= ~TTM_PL_FLAG_NO_EVICT;
>> - ttm_bo_move_to_lru_tail(bo, NULL);
>> - }
>> + ttm_bo_add_mem_to_lru(bo, &bo->mem);
>> kref_init(&bo->kref);
>> list_add_tail(&bo->ddestroy, &bdev->ddestroy);
>
> Yeah, thought about that as well. But this has the major drawback that the
> deleted BO moves to the end of the LRU, which is something we don't want.
well, as the bo is busy, looks like it needs time to being idle. putting it to
tail seems fair.
> I think the real solution to this problem is to go a completely different way
> and remove the delayed delete feature from TTM altogether. Instead this
> should be part of some DRM domain handler component.
>
yes, completely agree. As long as we can shrink bos when OOM, the workqueue is
not necessary, The workqueue does not help in a heavy workload case.
Pls see my patches below, I remove the workqueue, and what’s more, we can
clearup the bo without lru lock hold.
That would reduce the lock contention. I run kfdtest and got a good performance
result.
> In other words it should not matter if a BO is evicted, moved or freed.
> Whenever a piece of memory becomes available again we keep around a fence
> which marks the end of using this piece of memory.
>
> When then somebody asks for new memory we work through the LRU and test if
> using a certain piece of memory makes sense or not. If we find that a BO
> needs to be evicted for this we return a reference to the BO in question to
> the upper level handling.
>
> If we find that we can do the allocation but only with recently freed up
> memory we gather the fences and say you can only use the newly allocated
> memory after waiting for those.
>
> HEY! Wait a second! Did I just outlined what a potential replacement to TTM
> would look like?
yes, that is a good picture. Looks like we could do more work hen. :)
thanks
xinhui
--git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
index e795d5b5f8af..ac826a09b4ec 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
@@ -405,6 +405,9 @@ static int ttm_bo_individualize_resv(struct
ttm_buffer_object *bo)
if (bo->type != ttm_bo_type_sg) {
spin_lock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
+ /* it is very likely to release bo successfully.
+ * if not, just adding it back.
+ */
ttm_bo_del_from_lru(bo);
spin_unlock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
bo->base.resv = &bo->base._resv;
@@ -466,18 +469,20 @@ static int ttm_bo_cleanup_refs(struct ttm_buffer_object
*bo,
if (unlock_resv)
dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
- spin_unlock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
lret = dma_resv_wait_timeout_rcu(resv, true, interruptible,
30 * HZ);
if (lret < 0)
- return lret;
- else if (lret == 0)
- return -EBUSY;
+ goto busy;
+ else if (lret == 0) {
+ ret = -EBUSY;
+ goto busy;
+ }
- spin_lock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
if (unlock_resv && !dma_resv_trylock(bo->base.resv)) {
+ /* no race should be on it now */
+ BUG();
/*
* We raced, and lost, someone else holds the
reservation now,
* and is probably busy in ttm_bo_cleanup_memtype_use.
@@ -486,20 +491,18 @@ static int ttm_bo_cleanup_refs(struct ttm_buffer_object
*bo,
* delayed destruction would succeed, so just return
success
* here.
*/
- spin_unlock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
return 0;
}
ret = 0;
}
- if (ret || unlikely(list_empty(&bo->ddestroy))) {
+ if (ret) {
if (unlock_resv)
dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
- spin_unlock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
- return ret;
+ goto busy;
}
- ttm_bo_del_from_lru(bo);
+ spin_lock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
list_del_init(&bo->ddestroy);
spin_unlock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
ttm_bo_cleanup_memtype_use(bo);
@@ -510,11 +513,20 @@ static int ttm_bo_cleanup_refs(struct ttm_buffer_object
*bo,
ttm_bo_put(bo);
return 0;
+
+busy:
+ spin_lock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
+ ttm_bo_add_mem_to_lru(bo, &bo->mem);
+ spin_unlock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
+
+ return ret;
}
/**
* Traverse the delayed list, and call ttm_bo_cleanup_refs on all
* encountered buffers.
+ *
+ * only called bo device release
*/
static bool ttm_bo_delayed_delete(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev, bool remove_all)
{
@@ -533,17 +545,17 @@ static bool ttm_bo_delayed_delete(struct ttm_bo_device
*bdev, bool remove_all)
list_move_tail(&bo->ddestroy, &removed);
if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo))
continue;
+ ttm_bo_del_from_lru(bo);
+ spin_unlock(&glob->lru_lock);
if (remove_all || bo->base.resv != &bo->base._resv) {
- spin_unlock(&glob->lru_lock);
dma_resv_lock(bo->base.resv, NULL);
-
- spin_lock(&glob->lru_lock);
ttm_bo_cleanup_refs(bo, false, !remove_all, true);
-
} else if (dma_resv_trylock(bo->base.resv)) {
ttm_bo_cleanup_refs(bo, false, !remove_all, true);
} else {
+ spin_lock(&glob->lru_lock);
+ ttm_bo_add_mem_to_lru(bo, &bo->mem);
spin_unlock(&glob->lru_lock);
}
@@ -559,12 +571,8 @@ static bool ttm_bo_delayed_delete(struct ttm_bo_device
*bdev, bool remove_all)
static void ttm_bo_delayed_workqueue(struct work_struct *work)
{
- struct ttm_bo_device *bdev =
- container_of(work, struct ttm_bo_device, wq.work);
-
- if (!ttm_bo_delayed_delete(bdev, false))
- schedule_delayed_work(&bdev->wq,
- ((HZ / 100) < 1) ? 1 : HZ / 100);
+ WARN(true, "do not schedule it");
+ return;
}
static void ttm_bo_release(struct kref *kref)
@@ -595,6 +603,7 @@ static void ttm_bo_release(struct kref *kref)
ttm_mem_io_unlock(man);
}
+ /* if bo is busy, spend a little more time to add bo to lru and
ddestroy list*/
if (!dma_resv_test_signaled_rcu(bo->base.resv, true)) {
/* The BO is not idle, resurrect it for delayed destroy */
ttm_bo_flush_all_fences(bo);
@@ -615,8 +624,6 @@ static void ttm_bo_release(struct kref *kref)
list_add_tail(&bo->ddestroy, &bdev->ddestroy);
spin_unlock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
- schedule_delayed_work(&bdev->wq,
- ((HZ / 100) < 1) ? 1 : HZ / 100);
return;
}
@@ -842,6 +849,9 @@ static int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev,
return ret;
}
+ ttm_bo_del_from_lru(bo);
+ spin_unlock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
+
if (bo->deleted) {
ret = ttm_bo_cleanup_refs(bo, ctx->interruptible,
ctx->no_wait_gpu, locked);
@@ -849,8 +859,6 @@ static int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev,
return ret;
}
- spin_unlock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
-
ret = ttm_bo_evict(bo, ctx);
if (locked)
ttm_bo_unreserve(bo);
@@ -1809,14 +1817,15 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_bo_global *glob, struct
ttm_operation_ctx *ctx)
return ret;
}
+ ttm_bo_del_from_lru(bo);
+ spin_unlock(&glob->lru_lock);
+
if (bo->deleted) {
ret = ttm_bo_cleanup_refs(bo, false, false, locked);
ttm_bo_put(bo);
return ret;
}
- ttm_bo_del_from_lru(bo);
- spin_unlock(&glob->lru_lock);
/**
* Move to system cached
--
2.17.1
>
> Cheers,
> Christian.
>
>>
>> thanks
>> xinhui
>>
>>
>>> return r;
>>> }
>>> @@ -724,7 +736,7 @@ static bool ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(struct
>>> ttm_buffer_object *bo,
>>>
>>> if (bo->base.resv == ctx->resv) {
>>> dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
>>> - if (ctx->flags & TTM_OPT_FLAG_ALLOW_RES_EVICT || bo->deleted)
>>> + if (ctx->flags & TTM_OPT_FLAG_ALLOW_RES_EVICT)
>>> ret = true;
>>> *locked = false;
>>> if (busy)
>>> --
>>> 2.17.1
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> amd-gfx mailing list
>>> amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Famd-gfx&data=02%7C01%7CXinhui.Pan%40amd.com%7Cde4b94966a574ef82d8b08d7afb22e94%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637171052134304104&sdata=0TBPaQkZXjQCA54rbnDUP2TwlhPR3IiPXv%2FxPZGKm20%3D&reserved=0
>
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
