Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] drm: Add dummy page per device or GEM object

[Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 05:13:56PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 04:49:55PM +0000, Grodzovsky, Andrey wrote:
> > Ok then, I guess I will proceed with the dummy pages list implementation then.
> > 
> > Andrey
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: Koenig, Christian <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>
> > Sent: 08 January 2021 09:52
> > To: Grodzovsky, Andrey <Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com>; Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
> > Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>; daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>; robh@kernel.org <robh@kernel.org>; l.stach@pengutronix.de <l.stach@pengutronix.de>; yuq825@gmail.com <yuq825@gmail.com>; eric@anholt.net <eric@anholt.net>; Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>; gregkh@linuxfoundation.org <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; ppaalanen@gmail.com <ppaalanen@gmail.com>; Wentland, Harry <Harry.Wentland@amd.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/12] drm: Add dummy page per device or GEM object
> > 
> > Mhm, I'm not aware of any let over pointer between TTM and GEM and we
> > worked quite hard on reducing the size of the amdgpu_bo, so another
> > extra pointer just for that corner case would suck quite a bit.
> 
> We have a ton of other pointers in struct amdgpu_bo (or any of it's lower
> things) which are fairly single-use, so I'm really not much seeing the
> point in making this a special case. It also means the lifetime management
> becomes a bit iffy, since we can't throw away the dummy page then the last
> reference to the bo is released (since we don't track it there), but only
> when the last pointer to the device is released. Potentially this means a
> pile of dangling pages hanging around for too long.

Also if you really, really, really want to have this list, please don't
reinvent it since we have it already. drmm_ is exactly meant for resources
that should be freed when the final drm_device reference disappears.
-Daniel
 
> If you need some ideas for redundant pointers:
> - destroy callback (kinda not cool to not have this const anyway), we
>   could refcount it all with the overall gem bo. Quite a bit of work.
> - bdev pointer, if we move the device ttm stuff into struct drm_device, or
>   create a common struct ttm_device, we can ditch that
> - We could probably merge a few of the fields and find 8 bytes somewhere
> - we still have 2 krefs, would probably need to fix that before we can
>   merge the destroy callbacks
> 
> So there's plenty of room still, if the size of a bo struct is really that
> critical. Imo it's not.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Christian.
> > 
> > Am 08.01.21 um 15:46 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
> > > Daniel had some objections to this (see bellow) and so I guess I need
> > > you both to agree on the approach before I proceed.
> > >
> > > Andrey
> > >
> > > On 1/8/21 9:33 AM, Christian König wrote:
> > >> Am 08.01.21 um 15:26 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
> > >>> Hey Christian, just a ping.
> > >>
> > >> Was there any question for me here?
> > >>
> > >> As far as I can see the best approach would still be to fill the VMA
> > >> with a single dummy page and avoid pointers in the GEM object.
> > >>
> > >> Christian.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Andrey
> > >>>
> > >>> On 1/7/21 11:37 AM, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 1/7/21 11:30 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:26:52AM -0500, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 1/7/21 11:21 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 04:04:16PM -0500, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 11/23/20 3:01 AM, Christian König wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Am 23.11.20 um 05:54 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 11/21/20 9:15 AM, Christian König wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Am 21.11.20 um 06:21 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Will be used to reroute CPU mapped BO's page faults once
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> device is removed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Uff, one page for each exported DMA-buf? That's not
> > >>>>>>>>>>> something we can do.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> We need to find a different approach here.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Can't we call alloc_page() on each fault and link them together
> > >>>>>>>>>>> so they are freed when the device is finally reaped?
> > >>>>>>>>>> For sure better to optimize and allocate on demand when we reach
> > >>>>>>>>>> this corner case, but why the linking ?
> > >>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't drm_prime_gem_destroy be good enough place to free ?
> > >>>>>>>>> I want to avoid keeping the page in the GEM object.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> What we can do is to allocate a page on demand for each fault
> > >>>>>>>>> and link
> > >>>>>>>>> the together in the bdev instead.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> And when the bdev is then finally destroyed after the last
> > >>>>>>>>> application
> > >>>>>>>>> closed we can finally release all of them.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Christian.
> > >>>>>>>> Hey, started to implement this and then realized that by
> > >>>>>>>> allocating a page
> > >>>>>>>> for each fault indiscriminately
> > >>>>>>>> we will be allocating a new page for each faulting virtual
> > >>>>>>>> address within a
> > >>>>>>>> VA range belonging the same BO
> > >>>>>>>> and this is obviously too much and not the intention. Should I
> > >>>>>>>> instead use
> > >>>>>>>> let's say a hashtable with the hash
> > >>>>>>>> key being faulting BO address to actually keep allocating and
> > >>>>>>>> reusing same
> > >>>>>>>> dummy zero page per GEM BO
> > >>>>>>>> (or for that matter DRM file object address for non imported
> > >>>>>>>> BOs) ?
> > >>>>>>> Why do we need a hashtable? All the sw structures to track this
> > >>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>> still be around:
> > >>>>>>> - if gem_bo->dma_buf is set the buffer is currently exported as
> > >>>>>>> a dma-buf,
> > >>>>>>>     so defensively allocate a per-bo page
> > >>>>>>> - otherwise allocate a per-file page
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> That exactly what we have in current implementation
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Or is the idea to save the struct page * pointer? That feels a
> > >>>>>>> bit like
> > >>>>>>> over-optimizing stuff. Better to have a simple implementation
> > >>>>>>> first and
> > >>>>>>> then tune it if (and only if) any part of it becomes a problem
> > >>>>>>> for normal
> > >>>>>>> usage.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Exactly - the idea is to avoid adding extra pointer to
> > >>>>>> drm_gem_object,
> > >>>>>> Christian suggested to instead keep a linked list of dummy pages
> > >>>>>> to be
> > >>>>>> allocated on demand once we hit a vm_fault. I will then also
> > >>>>>> prefault the entire
> > >>>>>> VA range from vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start to vma->vm_end and map
> > >>>>>> them
> > >>>>>> to that single dummy page.
> > >>>>> This strongly feels like premature optimization. If you're worried
> > >>>>> about
> > >>>>> the overhead on amdgpu, pay down the debt by removing one of the
> > >>>>> redundant
> > >>>>> pointers between gem and ttm bo structs (I think we still have
> > >>>>> some) :-)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Until we've nuked these easy&obvious ones we shouldn't play "avoid 1
> > >>>>> pointer just because" games with hashtables.
> > >>>>> -Daniel
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Well, if you and Christian can agree on this approach and suggest
> > >>>> maybe what pointer is
> > >>>> redundant and can be removed from GEM struct so we can use the
> > >>>> 'credit' to add the dummy page
> > >>>> to GEM I will be happy to follow through.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> P.S Hash table is off the table anyway and we are talking only
> > >>>> about linked list here since by prefaulting
> > >>>> the entire VA range for a vmf->vma i will be avoiding redundant
> > >>>> page faults to same VMA VA range and so
> > >>>> don't need to search and reuse an existing dummy page but simply
> > >>>> create a new one for each next fault.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Andrey
> > >>
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx