On 11/19/2011 07:11 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Hellstrom
<thellst...@vmware.com> wrote:
On 11/19/2011 03:53 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 11:07 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 11/19/2011 01:26 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 23:48 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 11/18/2011 06:26 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 15:30 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 11/18/2011 02:15 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 08:57 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
Jerome,
I don't like this change for the following reasons
-snip-
One can take advantage of move notify callback but, there are
corner case where bind/unbind might be call without move notify
being call (in error path mostly). So to make sure that each
virtual address space have a consistent view of wether a buffer
object is backed or not by system page it's better to pass the
buffer object to bind/unbind.
As I discussed previously with Jerome on IRC, I believe the
move_notify
hook is sufficient. I fixed a couple of issues back with it back
when I
implemented support for this in nouveau.
Jerome did point out two issues however, which I believe can be
solved
easily enough.
The first was that the error path after move_notify() has been
called
doesn't reverse the move_notify() too, leaving incorrect page table
entries. This, I think, could easily be solved by swapping bo->mem
and
mem, and re-calling move_notify() to have the driver reverse
whatever it
did.
The second issue is that apparently move_notify() doesn't get called
in
the destroy path. Nouveau's GEM layer takes care of this for our
userspace bos, and we don't use any kernel bos that are mapped into
a
channel's address space so we don't hit it. This can probably be
solved
easily enough too I expect.
Ben.
OK. I understand. Surely if a move_notify is missing somewhere, that
can
easily be fixed.
It might be good if we can outline how the virtual tables are set up.
In
my world, the following would happen:
1) Pre command submission:
a) reserve bo
b) call ttm_bo_validate to set placement. move_notify will tear down
any
existing GPU page tables for the bo.
c) Set up GPU page tables.
Nouveau doesn't do this exactly. I wanted to avoid having to check if
a
bo was bound to a particular address space on every command
submission.
It perhaps might be a good idea to revisit this?
I think using move_notify to set up a new placement before the data has
actually been moved is very fragile and not the intended use. That
would
also save you from having to handle error paths. Also how do you handle
swapouts?
I don't see how it's fragile, there's only the one error path after that
point that needs to undo it. And, what *is* the expected use then? I
see it as "tell the driver the buffer is moving so it can do whatever is
necessary as a result".
Swapouts are a missed case though, indeed.
A quick check in c) that the virtual map hasn't been torn down by a
move_notify and, in that case, rebuild it would probably be next to
free. The virtual GPU mapping would then be valid only after validation
and while the bo is fenced or pinned.
This alone doesn't solve the swapouts issue either unless you're also
wanting us to unmap once a buffer becomes unfenced, which would lead to
loads of completely unnecessary map/unmaps.
Ben.
I think you misunderstand me a little.
The swapout issue should be handled by calling a move_notify() to kill
the virtual GPU mappings.
However, when moving data that has page tables pointing to it, one
should (IMHO) do:
1) Kill the old page tables
2) Move the object
3) Set up new page tables on demand.
This is done by TTM for CPU page tables and I think that should be done
also for GPU page tables. move_notify() should be responsible for 1),
The driver execbuf for 3), and 3) needs only to be done for the
particular ring / fifo which is executing commands that touch the buffer.
This leaves a clear and well-defined requirement on TTM:
Notify the driver when it needs to kill its GPU page tables.
Ok. This I don't really object to really. I read the previous mail as
that GPU mappings should only exist as long as the buffer is fenced,
which would be a ridiculous amount of overhead.
I agree. What I meant was that the page tables wouldn't be considered valid
when the fence had signaled. However that was actually incorrect because
they would actually be valid until the next move_notify(). The intention was
never to tear down the mappings once the fence had signaled; that would have
been pretty stupid.
With the latest patch from jerome:
Notify the driver when it needs to rebuild it page tables. Also on error
paths, but not for swapins because no driver will probably set up GPU
page tables to SYSTEM_MEMORY.
This is what I mean with fragile, and I much rather see the other
approach.
Ben, I didn't fully understand why you didn't want to use that approach.
Did you see a significant overhead with it.
Now I'm more clear on what you meant, no, it wouldn't be a lot of
overhead. However, move_notify() was never intended for the use you're
proposing now, or the new ttm_mem_reg would never have been being passed
in as a parameter...
I suppose you're right. Still I think this is the right way to go. Since it
has the following advantages:
1) TTM doesn't need to care about the driver re-populating its GPU page
tables.
Since swapin is handled from the tt layer not the bo layer, this makes it a
bit easier on us.
2) Transition to page-faulted GPU virtual maps is straightforward and
consistent. A non-page-faulting driver sets up the maps at CS time, A
pagefaulting driver can set them up directly from an irq handler without
reserving, since the bo is properly fenced or pinned when the pagefault
happens.
3) A non-page-faulting driver knows at CS time exactly which
page-table-entries really do need populating, and can do this more
efficiently.
So unless there are strong objections I suggest we should go this way.
Even if this changes the semantics of the TTM<-> driver interface compared
to how Nouveau currently does things, it means that Jerome's current patch
is basically correct and doesn't any longer have any assumptions about
SYSTEM memory never being used for virtual GPU maps.
Thanks,
Thomas.
I think it's better to let driver choose how it will handle its
virtual page table. For radeon i update in move_notify in order to
minimize the number of update. I don't want to track if an object have
been updated or not against each page table. Of course this add
possibly useless overhead to move notify as we might update page table
to many time (bo from vram->gtt->system)
I think if move notify is properly call once for each effective move
driver can do their own dance behind curtain.
Cheers,
Jerome
Jerome,
It's not really what the driver does that is the problem, it's what the
driver expects from the driver<-> TTM interface.
That's why I'd really like a maintainable interface design before coding
patches that makes the interface a set of various workarounds.
Enforcing this will also force driver writers to think twice before
implementing things in their own way adding another load of ad hoc callbacks
to TTM, without a clear specification but with the only purpose to fit a
specific driver implementation, so in a way it's our responsibility to
future driver writers to try to agree on a simple interface that works well
and allows drivers to do an efficient implementation, and that adds a little
maintenance burden on TTM.
If a future driver writer looks at the Radeon code and replicates it,
because he thinks it's state of the art, and then finds out his code breaks
because he can't use SYSTEM memory for GPU page tables, or use his own
private LRU, or the code breaks with partially populated TTMs and finally
finds it's quite inefficient too because it unnecessarily populates page
tables, we've failed.
This is really the point I'd like to make, but as a side note, I'm not
asking you to track each bo against each page table. What I'm asking you is
to not populate the page tables in bo_move() but in execbuf / pushbuf. The
possibility to track a bo against each page table comes as a nice benefit.
/Thomas
