From: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: lucas.demarchi@intel.com, matthew.brost@intel.com,
francois.dugast@intel.com, matthew.auld@intel.com,
anshuman.gupta@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] drm/xe: Relax runtime pm protection around VM
Date: Mon, 06 May 2024 14:30:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e0106194140f1801232744002779b6fa51af6fa4.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240503191309.7022-5-rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Hi, Rodrigo.
On Fri, 2024-05-03 at 15:13 -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> In the regular use case scenario, user space will create a
> VM, and keep it alive for the entire duration of its workload.
>
> For the regular desktop cases, it means that the VM
> is alive even on idle scenarios where display goes off. This
> is unacceptable since this would entirely block runtime PM
> indefinitely, blocking deeper Package-C state. This would be
> a waste drainage of power.
>
> So, let's limit the protection only for the long running workloads,
> which memory might be mapped and accessed during this entire
> workload.
>
> This indeed opens up a risk of use case without display, and
> without long-running workload, where memory might be mapped
> and accessed with direct read and write operations without
> any gpu execution involved. Because of this, we are also
> adding here, the extra protection for the special vm_op access
> callback.
A couple of ignorant questions:
Why aren't the runtime_pm get / put in xe_sched_job_create() /
destroy() sufficient also for LR vms? If not, could the vm deactivation
/ reactivation be used for this (see xe_vm_reactivate_rebind)
>
> In the ideal case of the mmapped scenario of vm_ops, we would
> also get references in the 'open' and 'mmap' callbacks, and
> put it back on the 'close' callback, for a balanced case.
> However, this would also block the regular desktop case, so
> we are not doing this.
I'm not completely following here. We have xe_runtime_pm_get() in the
fault handler + some form of delayed xe_runtime_pm_put(). Does this say
we ideally should replace that with open + mmap / close?
Thanks,
Thomas
>
> Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
> Cc: Francois Dugast <francois.dugast@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c | 6 +++---
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
> index 52a16cb4e736..48eca9f2651a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
> @@ -1157,11 +1157,26 @@ static vm_fault_t xe_gem_fault(struct
> vm_fault *vmf)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int xe_vm_access(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long
> addr,
> + void *buf, int len, int write)
> +{
> + struct ttm_buffer_object *tbo = vma->vm_private_data;
> + struct drm_device *ddev = tbo->base.dev;
> + struct xe_device *xe = to_xe_device(ddev);
> + int ret;
> +
> + xe_pm_runtime_get(xe);
> + ret = ttm_bo_vm_access(vma, addr, buf, len, write);
> + xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> static const struct vm_operations_struct xe_gem_vm_ops = {
> .fault = xe_gem_fault,
> .open = ttm_bo_vm_open,
> .close = ttm_bo_vm_close,
> - .access = ttm_bo_vm_access
> + .access = xe_vm_access
> };
>
> static const struct drm_gem_object_funcs xe_gem_object_funcs = {
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
> index dfd31b346021..aa298b768620 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
> @@ -1347,7 +1347,7 @@ struct xe_vm *xe_vm_create(struct xe_device
> *xe, u32 flags)
>
> vm->pt_ops = &xelp_pt_ops;
>
> - if (!(flags & XE_VM_FLAG_MIGRATION))
> + if (flags & XE_VM_FLAG_LR_MODE)
> xe_pm_runtime_get_noresume(xe);
>
> vm_resv_obj = drm_gpuvm_resv_object_alloc(&xe->drm);
> @@ -1457,7 +1457,7 @@ struct xe_vm *xe_vm_create(struct xe_device
> *xe, u32 flags)
> for_each_tile(tile, xe, id)
> xe_range_fence_tree_fini(&vm->rftree[id]);
> kfree(vm);
> - if (!(flags & XE_VM_FLAG_MIGRATION))
> + if (flags & XE_VM_FLAG_LR_MODE)
> xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
> return ERR_PTR(err);
> }
> @@ -1592,7 +1592,7 @@ static void vm_destroy_work_func(struct
> work_struct *w)
>
> mutex_destroy(&vm->snap_mutex);
>
> - if (!(vm->flags & XE_VM_FLAG_MIGRATION))
> + if (vm->flags & XE_VM_FLAG_LR_MODE)
> xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
>
> for_each_tile(tile, xe, id)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-06 12:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-03 19:13 [PATCH 0/7] Unlock deeper package-C states (PC-10) and D3Cold Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-03 19:13 ` [PATCH 1/7] drm/xe: Fix xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active return Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-06 11:47 ` Thomas Hellström
2024-05-06 13:15 ` Francois Dugast
2024-05-06 13:23 ` Thomas Hellström
2024-05-03 19:13 ` [PATCH 2/7] drm/xe: Fix xe_pm_runtime_get_if_in_use documentation Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-06 11:49 ` Thomas Hellström
2024-05-03 19:13 ` [PATCH 3/7] drm/xe: Relax runtime pm protection during execution Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-06 11:57 ` Thomas Hellström
2024-05-03 19:13 ` [PATCH 4/7] drm/xe: Relax runtime pm protection around VM Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-06 12:30 ` Thomas Hellström [this message]
2024-05-06 14:23 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-07 18:19 ` Matthew Brost
2024-05-09 11:48 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2024-05-09 19:41 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-03 19:13 ` [PATCH 5/7] drm/xe: Prepare display for D3Cold Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-03 19:13 ` [PATCH 6/7] drm/xe: Stop checking for power_lost on D3Cold Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-07 10:35 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2024-05-03 19:13 ` [PATCH 7/7] drm/xe: Enable D3Cold on 'low' VRAM utilization Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-09 11:51 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2024-05-03 20:34 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for Unlock deeper package-C states (PC-10) and D3Cold Patchwork
2024-05-03 20:34 ` ✓ CI.checkpatch: " Patchwork
2024-05-03 20:35 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2024-05-03 20:47 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2024-05-03 20:49 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-05-03 20:51 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2024-05-03 21:31 ` ✓ CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2024-05-04 0:18 ` ✗ CI.FULL: failure " Patchwork
2024-05-06 19:09 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-09 10:21 ` [PATCH 0/7] " Francois Dugast
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2024-05-08 20:07 [PATCH 1/7] drm/xe: Fix xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active return Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-08 20:07 ` [PATCH 4/7] drm/xe: Relax runtime pm protection around VM Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-09 15:48 ` Matthew Brost
2024-05-13 13:16 ` Thomas Hellström
2024-05-09 19:16 [PATCH 1/7] drm/xe: Fix xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active return Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-09 19:16 ` [PATCH 4/7] drm/xe: Relax runtime pm protection around VM Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-09 19:28 ` Matthew Brost
2024-05-13 13:23 ` 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=e0106194140f1801232744002779b6fa51af6fa4.camel@linux.intel.com \
--to=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
--cc=anshuman.gupta@intel.com \
--cc=francois.dugast@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@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