Re: CONFIG_DMA_CMA causes ttm performance problems/hangs.

[Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>]

On 08/10/2014 08:02 PM, Mario Kleiner wrote:
> On 08/10/2014 01:03 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 08/10/2014 05:11 AM, Mario Kleiner wrote:
>>> Resent this time without HTML formatting which lkml doesn't like.
>>> Sorry.
>>>
>>> On 08/09/2014 03:58 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>>> On 08/09/2014 03:33 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>>> On August 9, 2014 1:39:39 AM EDT, Thomas
>>>>> Hellstrom<thellstrom@vmware.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Thomas!
>>>>>
>>>>>> IIRC I don't think the TTM DMA pool allocates coherent pages more
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> one page at a time, and _if that's true_ it's pretty unnecessary for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> dma subsystem to route those allocations to CMA. Maybe Konrad could
>>>>>> shed
>>>>>> some light over this?
>>>>> It should allocate in batches and keep them in the TTM DMA pool for
>>>>> some time to be reused.
>>>>>
>>>>> The pages that it gets are in 4kb granularity though.
>>>> Then I feel inclined to say this is a DMA subsystem bug. Single page
>>>> allocations shouldn't get routed to CMA.
>>>>
>>>> /Thomas
>>> Yes, seems you're both right. I read through the code a bit more and
>>> indeed the TTM DMA pool allocates only one page during each
>>> dma_alloc_coherent() call, so it doesn't need CMA memory. The current
>>> allocators don't check for single page CMA allocations and therefore
>>> try to get it from the CMA area anyway, instead of skipping to the
>>> much cheaper fallback.
>>>
>>> So the callers of dma_alloc_from_contiguous() could need that little
>>> optimization of skipping it if only one page is requested. For
>>>
>>> dma_generic_alloc_coherent
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lxr.free-electrons.com/ident?i%3Ddma_generic_alloc_coherent&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=l5Ago9ekmVFZ3c4M6eauqrJWGwjf6fTb%2BP3CxbBFkVM%3D%0A&m=QQSN6uVpEiw6RuWLAfK%2FKWBFV5HspJUfDh4Y2mUz%2FH4%3D%0A&s=d1852625e2ab2ff07eb34a7f33fc1f55f7f13959912d5a6ce9316d23070ce939>
>>>
>>> andintel_alloc_coherent
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lxr.free-electrons.com/ident?i%3Dintel_alloc_coherent&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=l5Ago9ekmVFZ3c4M6eauqrJWGwjf6fTb%2BP3CxbBFkVM%3D%0A&m=QQSN6uVpEiw6RuWLAfK%2FKWBFV5HspJUfDh4Y2mUz%2FH4%3D%0A&s=82d587e9b6aeced5cf9a7caefa91bf47fba809f3522b7379d22e45a2d5d35ebd> 
>>> this
>>> seems easy to do. Looking at the arm arch variants, e.g.,
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c%23L1194&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=l5Ago9ekmVFZ3c4M6eauqrJWGwjf6fTb%2BP3CxbBFkVM%3D%0A&m=QQSN6uVpEiw6RuWLAfK%2FKWBFV5HspJUfDh4Y2mUz%2FH4%3D%0A&s=4c178257eab9b5d7ca650dedba76cf27abeb49ddc7aebb9433f52b6c8bb3bbac
>>>
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm64/mm/dma-mapping.c%23L44&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=l5Ago9ekmVFZ3c4M6eauqrJWGwjf6fTb%2BP3CxbBFkVM%3D%0A&m=QQSN6uVpEiw6RuWLAfK%2FKWBFV5HspJUfDh4Y2mUz%2FH4%3D%0A&s=5f62f4cbe8cee1f1dd4cbba656354efe6867bcdc664cf90e9719e2f42a85de08
>>>
>>>
>>> i'm not sure if it is that easily done, as there aren't any fallbacks
>>> for such a case and the code looks to me as if that's at least
>>> somewhat intentional.
>>>
>>> As far as TTM goes, one quick one-line fix to prevent it from using
>>> the CMA at least on SWIOTLB, NOMMU and Intel IOMMU (when using the
>>> above methods) would be to clear the __GFP_WAIT
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lxr.free-electrons.com/ident?i%3D__GFP_WAIT&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=l5Ago9ekmVFZ3c4M6eauqrJWGwjf6fTb%2BP3CxbBFkVM%3D%0A&m=QQSN6uVpEiw6RuWLAfK%2FKWBFV5HspJUfDh4Y2mUz%2FH4%3D%0A&s=d56d076770d3416264be6c9ea2829ac0d6951203696fa3ad04144f13307577bc>
>>> flag from the
>>> passed gfp_t flags. That would trigger the well working fallback.
>>> So, is
>>>
>>> __GFP_WAIT 
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lxr.free-electrons.com/ident?i%3D__GFP_WAIT&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=l5Ago9ekmVFZ3c4M6eauqrJWGwjf6fTb%2BP3CxbBFkVM%3D%0A&m=QQSN6uVpEiw6RuWLAfK%2FKWBFV5HspJUfDh4Y2mUz%2FH4%3D%0A&s=d56d076770d3416264be6c9ea2829ac0d6951203696fa3ad04144f13307577bc> 
>>> needed
>>> for those single page allocations that go through__ttm_dma_alloc_page
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lxr.free-electrons.com/ident?i%3D__ttm_dma_alloc_page&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=l5Ago9ekmVFZ3c4M6eauqrJWGwjf6fTb%2BP3CxbBFkVM%3D%0A&m=QQSN6uVpEiw6RuWLAfK%2FKWBFV5HspJUfDh4Y2mUz%2FH4%3D%0A&s=7898522bba274e4dcc332735fbcf0c96e48918f60c2ee8e9a3e9c73ab3487bd0>?
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be nice to have such a simple, non-intrusive one-line patch
>>> that we still could get into 3.17 and then backported to older stable
>>> kernels to avoid the same desktop hangs there if CMA is enabled. It
>>> would be also nice for actual users of CMA to not use up lots of CMA
>>> space for gpu's which don't need it. I think DMA_CMA was introduced
>>> around 3.12.
>>>
>> I don't think that's a good idea. Omitting __GFP_WAIT would cause
>> unnecessary memory allocation errors on systems under stress.
>> I think this should be filed as a DMA subsystem kernel bug / regression
>> and an appropriate solution should be worked out together with the DMA
>> subsystem maintainers and then backported.
>
> Ok, so it is needed. I'll file a bug report.
>
>>> The other problem is that probably TTM does not reuse pages from the
>>> DMA pool. If i trace the __ttm_dma_alloc_page
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lxr.free-electrons.com/ident?i%3D__ttm_dma_alloc_page&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=l5Ago9ekmVFZ3c4M6eauqrJWGwjf6fTb%2BP3CxbBFkVM%3D%0A&m=QQSN6uVpEiw6RuWLAfK%2FKWBFV5HspJUfDh4Y2mUz%2FH4%3D%0A&s=7898522bba274e4dcc332735fbcf0c96e48918f60c2ee8e9a3e9c73ab3487bd0>
>>> and
>>> __ttm_dma_free_page
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lxr.free-electrons.com/ident?i%3D__ttm_dma_alloc_page&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=l5Ago9ekmVFZ3c4M6eauqrJWGwjf6fTb%2BP3CxbBFkVM%3D%0A&m=QQSN6uVpEiw6RuWLAfK%2FKWBFV5HspJUfDh4Y2mUz%2FH4%3D%0A&s=7898522bba274e4dcc332735fbcf0c96e48918f60c2ee8e9a3e9c73ab3487bd0>
>>> calls for
>>> those single page allocs/frees, then over a 20 second interval of
>>> tracing and switching tabs in firefox, scrolling things around etc. i
>>> find about as many alloc's as i find free's, e.g., 1607 allocs vs.
>>> 1648 frees.
>> This is because historically the pools have been designed to keep only
>> pages with nonstandard caching attributes since changing page caching
>> attributes have been very slow but the kernel page allocators have been
>> reasonably fast.
>>
>> /Thomas
>
> Ok. A bit more ftraceing showed my hang problem case goes through the
> "if (is_cached)" paths, so the pool doesn't recycle anything and i see
> it bouncing up and down by 4 pages all the time.
>
> But for the non-cached case, which i don't hit with my problem, could
> one of you look at line 954...
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c%23L954&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=l5Ago9ekmVFZ3c4M6eauqrJWGwjf6fTb%2BP3CxbBFkVM%3D%0A&m=QQSN6uVpEiw6RuWLAfK%2FKWBFV5HspJUfDh4Y2mUz%2FH4%3D%0A&s=e15c51805d429ee6d8960d6b88035e9811a1cdbfbf13168eec2fbb2214b99c60
>
>
> ... and tell me why that unconditional npages = count; assignment
> makes sense? It seems to essentially disable all recycling for the dma
> pool whenever the pool isn't filled up to/beyond its maximum with free
> pages? When the pool is filled up, lots of stuff is recycled, but when
> it is already somewhat below capacity, it gets "punished" by not
> getting refilled? I'd just like to understand the logic behind that line.
>
> thanks,
> -mario

I'll happily forward that question to Konrad who wrote the code (or it
may even stem from the ordinary page pool code which IIRC has Dave
Airlie / Jerome Glisse as authors)

/Thomas