Intel-XE Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-xe] [PATCH RESEND v3 2/3] drm/ttm: Reduce the number of used allocation orders for TTM pages
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:45:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZDVkhtx1/uToLM5R@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <33b145f1-fce5-95f1-357d-dda128e3548d@amd.com>

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 02:11:18PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 11.04.23 um 11:51 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 10:06:49PM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > When swapping out, we will split multi-order pages both in order to
> > > move them to the swap-cache and to be able to return memory to the
> > > swap cache as soon as possible on a page-by-page basis.
> > > Reduce the page max order to the system PMD size, as we can then be nicer
> > > to the system and avoid splitting gigantic pages.
> > > 
> > > Looking forward to when we might be able to swap out PMD size folios
> > > without splitting, this will also be a benefit.
> > > 
> > > v2:
> > > - Include all orders up to the PMD size (Christian König)
> > > v3:
> > > - Avoid compilation errors for architectures with special PFN_SHIFTs
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > Apparently this fails on ppc build testing. Please supply build fix asap
> > (or I guess we need to revert). I'm kinda not clear why this only showed
> > up when I merged the drm-misc-next pr into drm-next ...
> 
> I'm really wondering this as well. It looks like PMD_SHIFT isn't a constant
> on this particular platform.
> 
> But from what I can find in the upstream 6.2 kernel PMD_SHIFT always seems
> to be a constant.
> 
> So how exactly can that here break?

There's some in-flight patches to rework MAX_ORDER and other things in
linux-next, maybe it's recent? If you check out linux-next then you need
to reapply the patch (since sfr reverted it).
-Daniel

> 
> Christian.
> 
> > -Daniel
> > 
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > >   1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
> > > index dfce896c4bae..18c342a919a2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
> > > @@ -47,6 +47,11 @@
> > >   #include "ttm_module.h"
> > > +#define TTM_MAX_ORDER (PMD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT)
> > > +#define __TTM_DIM_ORDER (TTM_MAX_ORDER + 1)
> > > +/* Some architectures have a weird PMD_SHIFT */
> > > +#define TTM_DIM_ORDER (__TTM_DIM_ORDER <= MAX_ORDER ? __TTM_DIM_ORDER : MAX_ORDER)
> > > +
> > >   /**
> > >    * struct ttm_pool_dma - Helper object for coherent DMA mappings
> > >    *
> > > @@ -65,11 +70,11 @@ module_param(page_pool_size, ulong, 0644);
> > >   static atomic_long_t allocated_pages;
> > > -static struct ttm_pool_type global_write_combined[MAX_ORDER];
> > > -static struct ttm_pool_type global_uncached[MAX_ORDER];
> > > +static struct ttm_pool_type global_write_combined[TTM_DIM_ORDER];
> > > +static struct ttm_pool_type global_uncached[TTM_DIM_ORDER];
> > > -static struct ttm_pool_type global_dma32_write_combined[MAX_ORDER];
> > > -static struct ttm_pool_type global_dma32_uncached[MAX_ORDER];
> > > +static struct ttm_pool_type global_dma32_write_combined[TTM_DIM_ORDER];
> > > +static struct ttm_pool_type global_dma32_uncached[TTM_DIM_ORDER];
> > >   static spinlock_t shrinker_lock;
> > >   static struct list_head shrinker_list;
> > > @@ -444,7 +449,7 @@ int ttm_pool_alloc(struct ttm_pool *pool, struct ttm_tt *tt,
> > >   	else
> > >   		gfp_flags |= GFP_HIGHUSER;
> > > -	for (order = min_t(unsigned int, MAX_ORDER - 1, __fls(num_pages));
> > > +	for (order = min_t(unsigned int, TTM_MAX_ORDER, __fls(num_pages));
> > >   	     num_pages;
> > >   	     order = min_t(unsigned int, order, __fls(num_pages))) {
> > >   		struct ttm_pool_type *pt;
> > > @@ -563,7 +568,7 @@ void ttm_pool_init(struct ttm_pool *pool, struct device *dev,
> > >   	if (use_dma_alloc) {
> > >   		for (i = 0; i < TTM_NUM_CACHING_TYPES; ++i)
> > > -			for (j = 0; j < MAX_ORDER; ++j)
> > > +			for (j = 0; j < TTM_DIM_ORDER; ++j)
> > >   				ttm_pool_type_init(&pool->caching[i].orders[j],
> > >   						   pool, i, j);
> > >   	}
> > > @@ -583,7 +588,7 @@ void ttm_pool_fini(struct ttm_pool *pool)
> > >   	if (pool->use_dma_alloc) {
> > >   		for (i = 0; i < TTM_NUM_CACHING_TYPES; ++i)
> > > -			for (j = 0; j < MAX_ORDER; ++j)
> > > +			for (j = 0; j < TTM_DIM_ORDER; ++j)
> > >   				ttm_pool_type_fini(&pool->caching[i].orders[j]);
> > >   	}
> > > @@ -637,7 +642,7 @@ static void ttm_pool_debugfs_header(struct seq_file *m)
> > >   	unsigned int i;
> > >   	seq_puts(m, "\t ");
> > > -	for (i = 0; i < MAX_ORDER; ++i)
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < TTM_DIM_ORDER; ++i)
> > >   		seq_printf(m, " ---%2u---", i);
> > >   	seq_puts(m, "\n");
> > >   }
> > > @@ -648,7 +653,7 @@ static void ttm_pool_debugfs_orders(struct ttm_pool_type *pt,
> > >   {
> > >   	unsigned int i;
> > > -	for (i = 0; i < MAX_ORDER; ++i)
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < TTM_DIM_ORDER; ++i)
> > >   		seq_printf(m, " %8u", ttm_pool_type_count(&pt[i]));
> > >   	seq_puts(m, "\n");
> > >   }
> > > @@ -751,13 +756,16 @@ int ttm_pool_mgr_init(unsigned long num_pages)
> > >   {
> > >   	unsigned int i;
> > > +	BUILD_BUG_ON(TTM_DIM_ORDER > MAX_ORDER);
> > > +	BUILD_BUG_ON(TTM_DIM_ORDER < 1);
> > > +
> > >   	if (!page_pool_size)
> > >   		page_pool_size = num_pages;
> > >   	spin_lock_init(&shrinker_lock);
> > >   	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&shrinker_list);
> > > -	for (i = 0; i < MAX_ORDER; ++i) {
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < TTM_DIM_ORDER; ++i) {
> > >   		ttm_pool_type_init(&global_write_combined[i], NULL,
> > >   				   ttm_write_combined, i);
> > >   		ttm_pool_type_init(&global_uncached[i], NULL, ttm_uncached, i);
> > > @@ -790,7 +798,7 @@ void ttm_pool_mgr_fini(void)
> > >   {
> > >   	unsigned int i;
> > > -	for (i = 0; i < MAX_ORDER; ++i) {
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < TTM_DIM_ORDER; ++i) {
> > >   		ttm_pool_type_fini(&global_write_combined[i]);
> > >   		ttm_pool_type_fini(&global_uncached[i]);
> > > -- 
> > > 2.39.2
> > > 
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

  reply	other threads:[~2023-04-11 13:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-04-04 20:06 [Intel-xe] [PATCH RESEND v3 0/3] drm/ttm: Small fixes / cleanups in prep for shrinking Thomas Hellström
2023-04-04 20:06 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH RESEND v3 1/3] drm/ttm/pool: Fix ttm_pool_alloc error path Thomas Hellström
2023-04-04 20:06 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH RESEND v3 2/3] drm/ttm: Reduce the number of used allocation orders for TTM pages Thomas Hellström
2023-04-11  9:51   ` Daniel Vetter
2023-04-11 12:11     ` Christian König
2023-04-11 13:45       ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2023-04-12  9:08         ` Daniel Vetter
2023-04-12 14:17           ` Christian König
2023-04-13  8:48             ` Daniel Vetter
2023-04-13  9:45               ` Christian König
2023-04-13 13:13                 ` Daniel Vetter
2023-04-14 10:11                   ` Christian König
2023-04-17  8:02                     ` Thomas Hellström
2023-04-04 20:06 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH RESEND v3 3/3] drm/ttm: Make the call to ttm_tt_populate() interruptible when faulting Thomas Hellström
2023-04-04 20:09 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for drm/ttm: Small fixes / cleanups in prep for shrinking Patchwork
2023-04-04 20:10 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2023-04-04 20:14 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2023-04-04 20:34 ` [Intel-xe] ○ CI.BAT: info " Patchwork
2023-04-05 12:32 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH RESEND v3 0/3] " Christian König
2023-04-05 12:36   ` Thomas Hellström

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=ZDVkhtx1/uToLM5R@phenom.ffwll.local \
    --to=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
    /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