Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] drm/cgroup: Add memory accounting DRM cgroup

Maxime Ripard
2024-08-06T14:09:46Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7659 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 03:01:44PM GMT, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:01:41PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >
> > On 01/07/2024 10:25, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > > Den 2024-06-28 kl. 16:04, skrev Maxime Ripard:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 09:22:56PM GMT, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > > > > Den 2024-06-27 kl. 19:16, skrev Maxime Ripard:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for working on this!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 05:47:21PM GMT, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > > > > > > The initial version was based roughly on the rdma and misc cgroup
> > > > > > > controllers, with a lot of the accounting code borrowed from rdma.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The current version is a complete rewrite with page counter; it uses
> > > > > > > the same min/low/max semantics as the memory cgroup as a result.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's a small mismatch as TTM uses u64, and page_counter long pages.
> > > > > > > In practice it's not a problem. 32-bits systems don't really come with
> > > > > > > > =4GB cards and as long as we're consistently wrong with units, it's
> > > > > > > fine. The device page size may not be in the same units as kernel page
> > > > > > > size, and each region might also have a different page size (VRAM vs GART
> > > > > > > for example).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The interface is simple:
> > > > > > > - populate drmcgroup_device->regions[..] name and size for each active
> > > > > > > region, set num_regions accordingly.
> > > > > > > - Call drm(m)cg_register_device()
> > > > > > > - Use drmcg_try_charge to check if you can allocate a chunk of memory,
> > > > > > > use drmcg_uncharge when freeing it. This may return an error code,
> > > > > > > or -EAGAIN when the cgroup limit is reached. In that case a reference
> > > > > > > to the limiting pool is returned.
> > > > > > > - The limiting cs can be used as compare function for
> > > > > > > drmcs_evict_valuable.
> > > > > > > - After having evicted enough, drop reference to limiting cs with
> > > > > > > drmcs_pool_put.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This API allows you to limit device resources with cgroups.
> > > > > > > You can see the supported cards in /sys/fs/cgroup/drm.capacity
> > > > > > > You need to echo +drm to cgroup.subtree_control, and then you can
> > > > > > > partition memory.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst<maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > > > Co-developed-by: Friedrich Vock<friedrich.vock@gmx.de>
> > > > > > I'm sorry, I should have wrote minutes on the discussion we had with TJ
> > > > > > and Tvrtko the other day.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We're all very interested in making this happen, but doing a "DRM"
> > > > > > cgroup doesn't look like the right path to us.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Indeed, we have a significant number of drivers that won't have a
> > > > > > dedicated memory but will depend on DMA allocations one way or the
> > > > > > other, and those pools are shared between multiple frameworks (DRM,
> > > > > > V4L2, DMA-Buf Heaps, at least).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This was also pointed out by Sima some time ago here:
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/amd-gfx/YCVOl8%2F87bqRSQei@phenom.ffwll.local/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So we'll want that cgroup subsystem to be cross-framework. We settled on
> > > > > > a "device" cgroup during the discussion, but I'm sure we'll have plenty
> > > > > > of bikeshedding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The other thing we agreed on, based on the feedback TJ got on the last
> > > > > > iterations of his series was to go for memcg for drivers not using DMA
> > > > > > allocations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's the part where I expect some discussion there too :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So we went back to a previous version of TJ's work, and I've started to
> > > > > > work on:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Integration of the cgroup in the GEM DMA and GEM VRAM helpers (this
> > > > > > works on tidss right now)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Integration of all heaps into that cgroup but the system one
> > > > > > (working on this at the moment)
> > > > >
> > > > > Should be similar to what I have then. I think you could use my work to
> > > > > continue it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I made nothing DRM specific except the name, if you renamed it the device
> > > > > resource management cgroup and changed the init function signature to take a
> > > > > name instead of a drm pointer, nothing would change. This is exactly what
> > > > > I'm hoping to accomplish, including reserving memory.
> > > >
> > > > I've started to work on rebasing my current work onto your series today,
> > > > and I'm not entirely sure how what I described would best fit. Let's
> > > > assume we have two KMS device, one using shmem, one using DMA
> > > > allocations, two heaps, one using the page allocator, the other using
> > > > CMA, and one v4l2 device using dma allocations.
> > > >
> > > > So we would have one KMS device and one heap using the page allocator,
> > > > and one KMS device, one heap, and one v4l2 driver using the DMA
> > > > allocator.
> > > >
> > > > Would these make different cgroup devices, or different cgroup regions?
> > >
> > > Each driver would register a device, whatever feels most logical for that device I suppose.
> > >
> > > My guess is that a prefix would also be nice here, so register a device with name of drm/$name or v4l2/$name, heap/$name. I didn't give it much thought and we're still experimenting, so just try something. :)
> > >
> > > There's no limit to amount of devices, I only fixed amount of pools to match TTM, but even that could be increased arbitrarily. I just don't think there is a point in doing so.
> >
> > Do we need a plan for top level controls which do not include region names?
> > If the latter will be driver specific then I am thinking of ease of
> > configuring it all from the outside. Especially considering that one cgroup
> > can have multiple devices in it.
> >
> > Second question is about double accounting for shmem backed objects. I think
> > they will be seen, for drivers which allocate backing store at buffer
> > objects creation time, under the cgroup of process doing the creation, in
> > the existing memory controller. Right?
>
> We currently don't set __GFP_ACCOUNT respectively use GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT,
> so no. Unless someone allocates them with GFP_USER ...
>
> > Is there a chance to exclude those from there and only have them in this new
> > controller? Or would the opposite be a better choice? That is, not see those
> > in the device memory controller but only in the existing one.
>
> I missed this, so jumping in super late. I think guidance from Tejun was
> to go the other way around: Exclude allocations from normal system
> memory from device cgroups and instead make sure it's tracked in the
> existing memcg.
>
> Which might mean we need memcg shrinkers and the assorted pain ...
>
> Also I don't think we ever reached some agreement on where things like cma
> allocations should be accounted for in this case.

Yeah, but that's the thing, memcg probably won't cut it for CMA. Because
if you pull the thread, that means that dma-heaps also have to register
their buffers into memcg too, even if it's backed by something else than
RAM.

This is what this cgroup controller is meant to do: memcg for memory
(GFP'd) buffers, this cgroup for everything else.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]