Re: [PATCH drm-misc-next 2/3] drm/gpuva_mgr: generalize dma_resv/extobj handling and GEM validation

Danilo Krummrich
2023-08-31T19:08:44Z

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 06:53:01PM +0200, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/31/23 13:18, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 11:04:06AM +0200, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > On 8/30/23 17:00, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 03:42:08PM +0200, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
> > > > > On 8/30/23 14:49, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Thomas,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks for having a look!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 09:27:45AM +0200, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi, Danilo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some quick comments since I'm doing some Xe work in this area. Will probably
> > > > > > > get back with more.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 8/20/23 23:53, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_gpuva_mgr.h b/include/drm/drm_gpuva_mgr.h
> > > > > > > > index ed8d50200cc3..693e2da3f425 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/include/drm/drm_gpuva_mgr.h
> > > > > > > > +++ b/include/drm/drm_gpuva_mgr.h
> > > > > > > > @@ -26,12 +26,16 @@
> > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > #include <linux/list.h>
> > > > > > > > +#include <linux/dma-resv.h>
> > > > > > > > +#include <linux/maple_tree.h>
> > > > > > > > #include <linux/rbtree.h>
> > > > > > > > #include <linux/types.h>
> > > > > > > > #include <drm/drm_gem.h>
> > > > > > > > +#include <drm/drm_exec.h>
> > > > > > > > struct drm_gpuva_manager;
> > > > > > > > +struct drm_gpuva_gem;
> > > > > > > > struct drm_gpuva_fn_ops;
> > > > > > > > /**
> > > > > > > > @@ -140,7 +144,7 @@ struct drm_gpuva {
> > > > > > > > int drm_gpuva_insert(struct drm_gpuva_manager *mgr, struct drm_gpuva *va);
> > > > > > > > void drm_gpuva_remove(struct drm_gpuva *va);
> > > > > > > > -void drm_gpuva_link(struct drm_gpuva *va);
> > > > > > > > +void drm_gpuva_link(struct drm_gpuva *va, struct drm_gpuva_gem *vm_bo);
> > > > > > > > void drm_gpuva_unlink(struct drm_gpuva *va);
> > > > > > > > struct drm_gpuva *drm_gpuva_find(struct drm_gpuva_manager *mgr,
> > > > > > > > @@ -240,15 +244,137 @@ struct drm_gpuva_manager {
> > > > > > > > * @ops: &drm_gpuva_fn_ops providing the split/merge steps to drivers
> > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > const struct drm_gpuva_fn_ops *ops;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + /**
> > > > > > > > + * @d_obj: Dummy GEM object; used internally to pass the GPU VMs
> > > > > > > > + * dma-resv to &drm_exec.
> > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > + struct drm_gem_object d_obj;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + /**
> > > > > > > > + * @resv: the &dma_resv for &drm_gem_objects mapped in this GPU VA
> > > > > > > > + * space
> > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > + struct dma_resv *resv;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + /**
> > > > > > > > + * @exec: the &drm_exec helper to lock external &drm_gem_objects
> > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > + struct drm_exec exec;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + /**
> > > > > > > > + * @mt_ext: &maple_tree storing external &drm_gem_objects
> > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > + struct maple_tree mt_ext;
> > > > > > > Why are you using a maple tree here? Insertion and removal is O(log(n))
> > > > > > > instead of O(1) for a list?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Having a list of drm_gem_objects directly wouldn't work, as multiple GPU-VMs
> > > > > > could have mappings of the same extobj.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I considered using the VM_BO abstraction (struct drm_gpuva_gem) as list entry
> > > > > > instead, which also seems to be the obvious choice. However, there is a locking
> > > > > > conflict.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A drm_gem_object keeps a list of drm_gpuva_gems, while each drm_gpuva_gem keeps
> > > > > > a list of drm_gpuvas. Both lists are either protected with the dma-resv lock of
> > > > > > the corresponding drm_gem_object, or with an external lock provided by the
> > > > > > driver (see drm_gem_gpuva_set_lock()). The latter is used by drivers performing
> > > > > > changes on the GPUVA space directly from the fence signalling path.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, similar to what drm_gpuva_link() and drm_gpuva_unlink() are doing already,
> > > > > > we'd want to add a drm_gpuva_gem to the extobj list for the first mapping being
> > > > > > linked and we'd want to remove it for the last one being unlinked.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Actually we'd want to add the drm_gpuva_gem object to the extobj list even
> > > > > > before, because otherwise we'd not acquire it's dma-resv lock of this GEM object
> > > > > > through drm_gpuva_manager_lock(). But that's trival, we could do that when we
> > > > > > create the drm_gpuva_gem, which we need to do anyways.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, we'd probably want to keep removing the drm_gpuva_gem from the extobj
> > > > > > list from drm_gpuva_unlink() when the last mapping of this BO is unlinked. In
> > > > > > order to do so, we'd (as discussed above) either need to hold the outer GPU-VM
> > > > > > lock or the GPU-VMs dma-resv lock. Both would be illegal in the case
> > > > > > drm_gpuva_unlink() is called from within the fence signalling path. For drivers
> > > > > > like XE or Nouveau, we'd at least need to make sure to not mess up the locking
> > > > > > hierarchy of GPU-VM lock and dma-resv lock of the corresponding BO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Considering all that, I thought it's probably better to track extobjs separate
> > > > > > from the drm_gpuva_gem, hence the maple tree choice.
> > > > > Hm. OK, in Xe we're having a list of the xe_vmas (drm_gpuvas) that point to
> > > > > external objects, or in the case of multiple mappings to the same gem
> > > > > object, only one of the drm_gpuvas is in the list. These are protected by
> > > > > the GPU-VM lock. I don't see a problem with removing those from the fence
> > > > > signalling path, though?
> > > > I intentionally tried to avoid keeping a list of drm_gpuvas to track extobjs,
> > > > since this is generic code I don't know how much mappings of an external object
> > > > the corresponding driver potentially creates. This could become a pretty large
> > > > list to iterate. Another reason was, that I want to keep the drm_gpuva structure
> > > > as small as possible, hence avoiding another list_head.
> > > Yes, the list might be pretty large, but OTOH you never iterate to access a
> > > single list element. When you need to iterate the whole list you need to do
> > > that regardless of the data structure used. As for the list head, it might
> > > perhaps be aliased (union) with an upcoming userptr list head?
> > >
> > Oh, I did not mean that I'm concerned about the size of a list of extobjs in
> > general, that would indeed be the same for every data structure chosen. But I
> > would be concerned about keeping a list of *all* mappings being backed by an
> > extobj.
> >
> > > > Now, it sounds like in XE you're doing some kind of optimization just keeping a
> > > > single mapping of an extobj in the list? How do you know when to remove it? What
> > > > if the mapping from the extobj list gets unmapped, but there is still another
> > > > one left in the GPU-VM being backed by the same BO?
> > > When removing from the lists, we iterate through the object's list of vmas,
> > > and if there is one matching the same vm, we replace the old one with the
> > > new one. A similar iteration is done when adding to avoid adding one that is
> > > already on the list.
> > I see, but wouldn't this be O(n) on insertion and O(m) on removal of an extobj,
> > while using the maple tree is O(log(n))?
>
> No, insertion and removal is O(m) where m is the number of vms the object is
> currently bound to. Typically a very small number.

Ok, my guess was that on insertion you'd actually walk the extobj list and see
if there's a vma backed by the same BO already, while on removal you said you're
walking the BO's vma list. So I guess on insertion you're also walking the BO's
vma list and see if there's already a mapping for this VM?

In your case that might make sense if you expect the extobj list to be larger
than the BO's vma list typically. In general I don't think this is true.

>
> >
> > > > Although assuming that's a no-go for GPUVA wouldn't an XArray be a better
> > > > choice, keeping O(1)?
> > > > When tracking extobjs, the address of the drm_gem_object is the key while the
> > > > reference count is the value. I was thinking of an XArray as well, but I was
> > > > worried that the corresponding indices could be too much distributed for an
> > > > XArray to still be efficient. Now that I think about it, it's probably not that
> > > > bad.
> > > >
> > > > Btw., while I agree trying to make things as efficient as possible, what is the
> > > > magnitue for extobjs to be tracked, do we need to worry about the O(log(n))?
> > > Not sure yet, TBH, but I think one of our UMDs can only use external object,
> > > because they don't know at creation time which ones need exporting. However
> > > if this turns out to be too bad, there are various flavours of "clever but
> > > complicated" optimizations that we could think of to reduce the list size.
> > > Still in our case, we opted for the vma list head for now.
> > Considering the above, I would guess that if your current approach is good
> > enough, a maple tree will work as well.
>
> Hmm, Yeah it's probably a bikeshed since each drm_exec builds a realloced
> array of all external objects on each exec.

I did a quick sketchy benchmark, which is probably good enough. In a maple tree
with 0xFFFF - 1 existing entries insertion of a random (non-existant) entry
took on average ~530ns over 1k iterations.

The average insertion time for each entry to build up a tree with 0xFFFF - 1
entries in the first place was ~1.3us. That's expected since it should hit
memory allocations more often than the previous one. The maximum peak was ~10us.
Inserting already existing entries took ~300ns.

That's probably good enough.

>
> >
> > Otherwise, if you want, I could do some experiments with Xarray and see how
> > that works out compared to using a maple tree.
> >
> > Btw. another nice thing about using Xarray or maple tree for that is that
> > drivers updating the VA space from the fence signalling path don't need to
> > hold a GPU-VM lock to update the extobj list. Actually, they might not need
> > a GPU-VM lock at all.
>
> I still don't follow why drivers would want to do that. Isn't the VA space /
> fence object list always updated sync from the IOCTL?

For the extobj list I don't see any advantage not doing that in the IOCTL right
away. For the VA space there are a few advantages doing it in the fence
signalling path.

(1) No need to allocate drm_gpuva_ops at all. For a given map / unmap request
the driver can receive the callbacks for map / remap / unmap directly.
(2) No need to unwind VA space updates on failure, also no need for any other
unwind tricks.
(3) Synchronous bind jobs can be injected at any point of time and don't need to
be queued up in the scheduler to preserve ordering.
(4) Potentially less error prone ressource management. Although, I admit partly
this is just the consequence of (1) and (2).

Actually, once I get the page table management prepared for that I'd like to
move Nouveau over this approach.

>
> /Thomas
>
>
> >
> > > /Thomas
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + /**
> > > > > > > > + * @evict: structure holding the evict list and evict list lock
> > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > + struct {
> > > > > > > > + /**
> > > > > > > > + * @list: &list_head storing &drm_gem_objects currently being
> > > > > > > > + * evicted
> > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > + struct list_head list;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > + /**
> > > > > > > > + * @lock: spinlock to protect the evict list against concurrent
> > > > > > > > + * insertion / removal of different &drm_gpuva_gems
> > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > + spinlock_t lock;
> > > > > > > > + } evict;
> > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > void drm_gpuva_manager_init(struct drm_gpuva_manager *mgr,
> > > > > > > > + struct drm_device *drm,
> > > > > > > > const char *name,
> > > > > > > > u64 start_offset, u64 range,
> > > > > > > > u64 reserve_offset, u64 reserve_range,
> > > > > > > > const struct drm_gpuva_fn_ops *ops);
> > > > > > > > void drm_gpuva_manager_destroy(struct drm_gpuva_manager *mgr);
> > > > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > > > + * DRM_GPUVA_EXEC - returns the &drm_gpuva_managers &drm_exec instance
> > > > > > > > + * @mgr: the &drm_gpuva_managers to return the &drm_exec instance for
> > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > +#define DRM_GPUVA_EXEC(mgr) &(mgr)->exec
> > > > > > > A struct ww_acquire_ctx and thus a drm_exec is fundamentally per task and
> > > > > > > should typically be allocated on the stack. Otherwise you'd need to protect
> > > > > > > the mgr->exec member with an exclusive lock throughout the locking process,
> > > > > > > and that's not what we want.
> > > > > > Oh, good point. I think it works in Nouveau, because there it's implicitly
> > > > > > protected with the job submission lock.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did you consider subclassing a drm_exec for drm_gpuva purposes and add
> > > > > > > needed ops to it: Like so:
> > > > > > That's a good idea, will take this into V2.
> > > > > Actually, I'm not fully sure that was a good idea: I've now have a working
> > > > > version of Xe ported over to drm_exec, having these helpers in mind and with
> > > > > the intention to start using them as they mature. What I found, though is
> > > > > that open-coding the drm_exec loop is not all that bad, but that building
> > > > > blocks that can be called from within the loop are useful:
> > > > >
> > > > > Like the drm_gpuva_prepare_objects() and an imaginary
> > > > > drm_gpuva_prepare_gpuva() that locks the vm resv and the resv of the object
> > > > > (if different and the gpuva points to the object. And
> > > > > drm_gpuva_prepare_array() although we don't use it within Xe. That means you
> > > > > can use these building blocks like helpers and avoid the fn() callback by
> > > > > instead open-coding.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I guess YMMV.
> > > > That's exactly why those building blocks are exported, I already had in mind
> > > > that there might be drivers which still want to open-code the drm_exec loop,
> > > > while others might just want a simple interface to lock everything.
> > > >
> > > > I still think it is a good idea, but I'd keep that as simple as possible. And
> > > > for everything else just let the driver open-code it and use the "building
> > > > blocks" - will also expand the bulding blocks to what you mentioned above.
> > > >
> > > > > > > struct drm_gpuva_exec_ops {
> > > > > > >     int (*fn) (struct drm_gpuva_exec *exec, int num_fences);
> > > > > > Is this the fn argument from drm_gpuva_manager_lock_extra()?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >     int (*bo_validate) (struct drm_gpuva_exec *exec, struct drm_gem_object
> > > > > > > *obj);
> > > > > > I guess we could also keep that within the drm_gpuva_fn_ops? This should always
> > > > > > be the same callback, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > };
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > struct drm_gpuva_exec {
> > > > > > >     const struct drm_gpuva_exec_ops *ops;
> > > > > > >     struct drm_exec exec;
> > > > > > >     struct drm_gpuva_manager *mgr;
> > > > > > > };
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Although I'd actually expect bo_validate to be part of fn in the typical
> > > > > > > case. The drm_gpuva_exec would then be allocated by the caller on the stack.
> > > > > > This doesn't sound like my assumption about fn() above is correct.
> > > > > Well one important thing in our conversion is that ttm_bo_validate () needs
> > > > > to be in the until_all_locked() loop. We want to be able soon to use
> > > > > sleeping locks for eviction, so a xe_bo_validate() would, at least
> > > > > temporarily, add locked objects to the drm_exec list of locked objects. That
> > > > > means everything that may end up calling validate deep within the call chain
> > > > > needs to be part of the until_all_locked() loop, so our
> > > > > drm_gpuva_manager_lock_extra() fn callback would include those validates and
> > > > > look different all the time. Hence that's why open-coding isn't all that
> > > > > bad...
> > > > Oh, I see. You indeed want to call validate() from within until_all_locked().
> > > >
> > > > > /Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > <snip>
>