From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 0/7] Default request/fence expiry + watchdog
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:13:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210324121335.2307063-1-tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> (raw)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
"Watchdog" aka "restoring hangcheck" aka default request/fence expiry - second
post of a somewhat controversial feature, now upgraded to patch status.
I quote the "watchdog" becuase in classical sense watchdog would allow userspace
to ping it and so remain alive.
I quote "restoring hangcheck" because this series, contrary to the old
hangcheck, is not looking at whether the workload is making any progress from
the kernel side either. (Although disclaimer my memory may be leaky - Daniel
suspects old hangcheck had some stricter, more indiscriminatory, angles to it.
But apart from being prone to both false negatives and false positives I can't
remember that myself.)
Short version - ask is to fail any user submissions after a set time period. In
this RFC that time is twelve seconds.
Time counts from the moment user submission is "runnable" (implicit and explicit
dependencies have been cleared) and keeps counting regardless of the GPU
contetion caused by other users of the system.
So semantics are really a bit weak, but again, I understand this is really
really wanted by the DRM core even if I am not convinced it is a good idea.
There are some dangers with doing this - text borrowed from a patch in the
series:
This can have an effect that workloads which used to work fine will
suddenly start failing. Even workloads comprised of short batches but in
long dependency chains can be terminated.
And becuase of lack of agreement on usefulness and safety of fence error
propagation this partial execution can be invisible to userspace even if
it is "listening" to returned fence status.
Another interaction is with hangcheck where care needs to be taken timeout
is not set lower or close to three times the heartbeat interval. Otherwise
a hang in any application can cause complete termination of all
submissions from unrelated clients. Any users modifying the per engine
heartbeat intervals therefore need to be aware of this potential denial of
service to avoid inadvertently enabling it.
Given all this I am personally not convinced the scheme is a good idea.
Intuitively it feels object importers would be better positioned to
enforce the time they are willing to wait for something to complete.
v2:
* Dropped context param.
* Improved commit messages and Kconfig text.
v3:
* Log timeouts.
* Bump timeout to 20s to see if it helps Tigerlake.
* Fix sentinel assert.
v4:
* A round of review feedback applied.
Chris Wilson (1):
drm/i915: Individual request cancellation
Tvrtko Ursulin (6):
drm/i915: Extract active lookup engine to a helper
drm/i915: Restrict sentinel requests further
drm/i915: Handle async cancellation in sentinel assert
drm/i915: Request watchdog infrastructure
drm/i915: Fail too long user submissions by default
drm/i915: Allow configuring default request expiry via modparam
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Kconfig.profile | 14 ++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_context.c | 73 ++++---
.../gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_context_types.h | 4 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context_param.h | 11 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context_types.h | 4 +
.../gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_heartbeat.c | 1 +
.../drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 23 +-
.../drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.h | 2 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.c | 3 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h | 2 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.c | 28 +++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_types.h | 7 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 5 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.h | 1 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 129 ++++++++++-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.h | 16 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_request.c | 201 ++++++++++++++++++
17 files changed, 479 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
--
2.27.0
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next reply other threads:[~2021-03-24 12:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-24 12:13 Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2021-03-24 12:13 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915: Extract active lookup engine to a helper Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-03-24 12:21 ` Matthew Auld
2021-03-24 12:13 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/7] drm/i915: Individual request cancellation Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-03-24 15:24 ` Matthew Auld
2021-03-24 12:13 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/7] drm/i915: Restrict sentinel requests further Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-03-24 15:25 ` Matthew Auld
2021-03-26 0:01 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-24 12:13 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/7] drm/i915: Handle async cancellation in sentinel assert Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-03-24 17:22 ` Matthew Auld
2021-03-24 12:13 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/7] drm/i915: Request watchdog infrastructure Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-03-26 0:00 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-26 10:32 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-03-24 12:13 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915: Fail too long user submissions by default Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-03-24 12:13 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915: Allow configuring default request expiry via modparam Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-03-26 0:25 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-24 13:16 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for Default request/fence expiry + watchdog (rev5) Patchwork
2021-03-24 13:21 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.DOCS: " Patchwork
2021-03-24 13:48 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2021-03-24 23:29 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2021-03-26 9:10 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 0/7] Default request/fence expiry + watchdog Daniel Vetter
2021-03-26 10:31 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-04-08 10:18 ` Daniel Vetter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210324121335.2307063-1-tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
--to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox