From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
To: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>, <nirmoy.das@intel.com>,
<farah.kassabri@intel.com>, <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] Proper GT TLB invalidation layering and new coalescing feature.
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 16:31:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zo1lxteMKSIRyjFu@DUT025-TGLU.fm.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6aba8e53-55fd-4573-ad0c-e8c62ebe1297@intel.com>
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:57:14AM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/07/2024 05:03, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > While debuging [1] an issue was identified in which if too many GT TLB
> > invalidations are issued to the GuC, the GuC can get overwhelmed to the
> > point scheduling of jobs starts to stall. To avoid this, hold and
> > coalesce GT TLB invalidations in the KMD if a watermark of pending
> > invalidations is past. Add gitlab for this issue has also been opened
> > [2].
> >
> > Layering issues with GT TLB invalidations are known [3] which needed to
> > be fixed first before adding this new feature.
> >
> > - Patches 1-8 fix the layering.
> > - Patches 9-11 add coalescing feature.
> >
> > We could merge these two as seperate series if needed.
> >
> > CCing various stakeholders (Farah, Michal, Nirmoy) which have raised GT
> > TLB invalidation issues in the past.
>
> Maybe worth mentioning for [1], we try to process TLB invalidations directly
> from the irq, however we also only process the g2h queue in-order, so if
> there is something other than TLB invalidation or fault earlier in the queue
Faults get sunk to a secondary queue to avoid stalling the g2h queue +
work around dma-fencing rules.
> then we do nothing useful from the irq and just return, that is until the wq
> can eventually process those earlier items that couldn't be processed
> directly from the irq. In the past I have seen TLB timeouts where the TLB
> invalidation is clearly in the g2h queue (and has been for a while), but is
> stuck behind something earlier in the queue that needs the wq, but system is
> under such a heavy load that the wq can't be scheduled in a timely manner.
>
Great point. Will add.
But perhaps we need to change the 'ct->g2h_wq' priority too. I think
this should be the highest priority WQ in the Xe KMD.
Thanks,
Matt
> >
> > v2:
> > - Fix CI issues
> > - Clean up some of the series / patch structure
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > [1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel/-/issues/799#note_2449497
> > [2] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel/-/issues/2162
> > [3] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/133001/
> >
> > Matthew Brost (11):
> > drm/xe: Add xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_fence_init helper
> > drm/xe: Drop xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_wait
> > drm/xe: s/tlb_invalidation.lock/tlb_invalidation.fence_lock
> > drm/xe: Add tlb_invalidation.seqno_lock
> > drm/xe: Add xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_done_handler
> > drm/xe: Add send tlb invalidation helpers
> > drm/xe: Add xe_guc_tlb_invalidation layer
> > drm/xe: Add multi-client support for GT TLB invalidations
> > drm/xe: Add GT TLB invalidation coalescing
> > drm/xe: Add GT TLB invalidation coalesce tracepoints
> > drm/xe: Add GT TLB invalidation watermark debugfs
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile | 1 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_debugfs.c | 38 ++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c | 3 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h | 5 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c | 21 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt_types.h | 5 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c | 641 ++++++++++++------
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.h | 26 +-
> > .../gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_types.h | 41 ++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_types.h | 43 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_tlb_invalidation.c | 145 ++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_tlb_invalidation.h | 18 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pt.c | 33 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_trace.h | 10 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c | 45 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm_types.h | 3 +
> > 17 files changed, 801 insertions(+), 279 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_tlb_invalidation.c
> > create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_tlb_invalidation.h
> >
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-09 16:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-08 4:03 [PATCH v2 00/11] Proper GT TLB invalidation layering and new coalescing feature Matthew Brost
2024-07-08 4:03 ` [PATCH v2 01/11] drm/xe: Add xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_fence_init helper Matthew Brost
2024-07-09 15:56 ` Nirmoy Das
2024-07-08 4:03 ` [PATCH v2 02/11] drm/xe: Drop xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_wait Matthew Brost
2024-07-09 15:57 ` Nirmoy Das
2024-07-08 4:03 ` [PATCH v2 03/11] drm/xe: s/tlb_invalidation.lock/tlb_invalidation.fence_lock Matthew Brost
2024-07-09 15:57 ` Nirmoy Das
2024-07-08 4:03 ` [PATCH v2 04/11] drm/xe: Add tlb_invalidation.seqno_lock Matthew Brost
2024-07-08 4:03 ` [PATCH v2 05/11] drm/xe: Add xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_done_handler Matthew Brost
2025-07-23 17:22 ` Summers, Stuart
2024-07-08 4:03 ` [PATCH v2 06/11] drm/xe: Add send tlb invalidation helpers Matthew Brost
2024-07-08 4:03 ` [PATCH v2 07/11] drm/xe: Add xe_guc_tlb_invalidation layer Matthew Brost
2024-07-09 21:31 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2024-07-10 4:02 ` Matthew Brost
2024-07-08 4:03 ` [PATCH v2 08/11] drm/xe: Add multi-client support for GT TLB invalidations Matthew Brost
2024-07-08 4:03 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] drm/xe: Add GT TLB invalidation coalescing Matthew Brost
2024-07-08 4:03 ` [PATCH v2 10/11] drm/xe: Add GT TLB invalidation coalesce tracepoints Matthew Brost
2024-07-08 4:03 ` [PATCH v2 11/11] drm/xe: Add GT TLB invalidation watermark debugfs Matthew Brost
2024-07-08 4:08 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for Proper GT TLB invalidation layering and new coalescing feature. (rev2) Patchwork
2024-07-08 4:09 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2024-07-08 4:10 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2024-07-08 4:22 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2024-07-08 4:24 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-07-08 4:25 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2024-07-08 4:51 ` ✓ CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2024-07-08 5:46 ` ✗ CI.FULL: failure " Patchwork
2024-07-09 9:57 ` [PATCH v2 00/11] Proper GT TLB invalidation layering and new coalescing feature Matthew Auld
2024-07-09 16:08 ` Nirmoy Das
2024-07-09 16:35 ` Matthew Brost
2024-07-09 16:42 ` Nirmoy Das
2024-07-09 21:23 ` Matthew Brost
2024-07-09 16:31 ` Matthew Brost [this message]
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=Zo1lxteMKSIRyjFu@DUT025-TGLU.fm.intel.com \
--to=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=farah.kassabri@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=michal.wajdeczko@intel.com \
--cc=nirmoy.das@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