On 28/03/2024 20:42, Felix Kuehling wrote:
On 2024-03-28 12:03, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
Hi Felix,
I had one more thought while browsing around the amdgpu CRIU plugin.
It appears it relies on the KFD support being compiled in and /dev/kfd
present, correct? AFAICT at least, it relies on that to figure out the
amdgpu DRM node.
In would be probably good to consider designing things without that
dependency. So that checkpointing an application which does not use
/dev/kfd is possible. Or if the kernel does not even have the KFD
support compiled in.
Yeah, if we want to support graphics apps that don't use KFD, we should
definitely do that. Currently we get a lot of topology information from
KFD, not even from the /dev/kfd device but from the sysfs nodes exposed
by KFD. We'd need to get GPU device info from the render nodes instead.
And if KFD is available, we may need to integrate both sources of
information.
It could perhaps mean no more than adding some GPU discovery code into
CRIU. Which shuold be flexible enough to account for things like
re-assigned minor numbers due driver reload.
Do you mean adding GPU discovery to the core CRIU, or to the plugin. I
was thinking this is still part of the plugin.
Yes I agree. I was only thinking about adding some DRM device discovery
code in a more decoupled fashion from the current plugin, for both the
reason discussed above (decoupling a bit from reliance on kfd sysfs),
and then also if/when a new DRM driver might want to implement this the
code could be move to some common plugin area.
I am not sure how feasible that would be though. The "gpu id" concept
and it's matching in the current kernel code and CRIU plugin - is that
value tied to the physical GPU instance or how it works?
Otherwise I am eagerly awaiting to hear more about the design
specifics around dma-buf handling. And also seeing how to extend to
other DRM related anonymous fds.
I've been pretty far under-water lately. I hope I'll find time to work
on this more, but it's probably going to be at least a few weeks.
Got it.
Regards,
Tvrtko
Regards,
Felix
Regards,
Tvrtko
On 15/03/2024 18:36, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 15/03/2024 02:33, Felix Kuehling wrote:
On 2024-03-12 5:45, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 11/03/2024 14:48, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
Hi Felix,
On 06/12/2023 21:23, Felix Kuehling wrote:
Executive Summary: We need to add CRIU support to DRM render
nodes in order to maintain CRIU support for ROCm application once
they start relying on render nodes for more GPU memory
management. In this email I'm providing some background why we
are doing this, and outlining some of the problems we need to
solve to checkpoint and restore render node state and shared
memory (DMABuf) state. I have some thoughts on the API design,
leaning on what we did for KFD, but would like to get feedback
from the DRI community regarding that API and to what extent
there is interest in making that generic.
We are working on using DRM render nodes for virtual address
mappings in ROCm applications to implement the CUDA11-style VM
API and improve interoperability between graphics and compute.
This uses DMABufs for sharing buffer objects between KFD and
multiple render node devices, as well as between processes. In
the long run this also provides a path to moving all or most
memory management from the KFD ioctl API to libdrm.
Once ROCm user mode starts using render nodes for virtual address
management, that creates a problem for checkpointing and
restoring ROCm applications with CRIU. Currently there is no
support for checkpointing and restoring render node state, other
than CPU virtual address mappings. Support will be needed for
checkpointing GEM buffer objects and handles, their GPU virtual
address mappings and memory sharing relationships between devices
and processes.
Eventually, if full CRIU support for graphics applications is
desired, more state would need to be captured, including
scheduler contexts and BO lists. Most of this state is
driver-specific.
After some internal discussions we decided to take our design
process public as this potentially touches DRM GEM and DMABuf
APIs and may have implications for other drivers in the future.
One basic question before going into any API details: Is there a
desire to have CRIU support for other DRM drivers?
This sounds like a very interesting feature on the overall,
although I cannot answer on the last question here.
I forgot to finish this thought. I cannot answer / don't know of
any concrete plans, but I think feature is pretty cool and if
amdgpu gets it working I wouldn't be surprised if other drivers
would get interested.
Thanks, that's good to hear!
Funnily enough, it has a tiny relation to an i915 feature I
recently implemented on Mesa's request, which is to be able to
"upload" the GPU context from the GPU hang error state and replay
the hanging request. It is kind of (at a stretch) a very special
tiny subset of checkout and restore so I am not mentioning it as a
curiosity.
And there is also another partical conceptual intersect with the
(at the moment not yet upstream) i915 online debugger. This part
being in the area of discovering and enumerating GPU resources
beloning to the client.
I don't see an immediate design or code sharing opportunities
though but just mentioning.
I did spend some time reading your plugin and kernel
implementation out of curiousity and have some comments and
questions.
With that out of the way, some considerations for a possible DRM
CRIU API (either generic of AMDGPU driver specific): The API goes
through several phases during checkpoint and restore:
Checkpoint:
1. Process-info (enumerates objects and sizes so user mode can
allocate
memory for the checkpoint, stops execution on the GPU)
2. Checkpoint (store object metadata for BOs, queues, etc.)
3. Unpause (resumes execution after the checkpoint is complete)
Restore:
1. Restore (restore objects, VMAs are not in the right place at
this time)
2. Resume (final fixups after the VMAs are sorted out, resume
execution)
Btw is check-pointing guaranteeing all relevant activity is idled?
For instance dma_resv objects are free of fences which would need
to restored for things to continue executing sensibly? Or how is
that handled?
In our compute use cases, we suspend user mode queues. This can
include CWSR (compute-wave-save-restore) where the state of
in-flight waves is stored in memory and can be reloaded and resumed
from memory later. We don't use any fences other than "eviction
fences", that are signaled after the queues are suspended. And those
fences are never handed to user mode. So we don't need to worry
about any fence state in the checkpoint.
If we extended this to support the kernel mode command submission
APIs, I would expect that we'd wait for all current submissions to
complete, and stop new ones from being sent to the HW before taking
the checkpoint. When we take the checkpoint in the CRIU plugin, the
CPU threads are already frozen and cannot submit any more work. If
we wait for all currently pending submissions to drain, I think we
don't need to save any fence state because all the fences will have
signaled. (I may be missing some intricacies and I'm afraid it may
not be that simple in reality, but that's my opening bid. ;)
It feels feasible to me too, for the normally behaving clients at least.
Presumably, given that the whole checkpointing is not instant, it
would be okay to wait a second or two longer for the in-progress
submissions complete. After which kernel would need to prune all
signalled fences from the respective container objects before
checkpointing.
For the "misbehaving" clients who have perhaps queued up too much
work, either still in the scheduler with unsatisfied dependencies, or
already submitted to the hardware and/or driver backend, is there a
timeout concept in CRIU so it would be possible to say something like
"try to checkpoint but if the kernel says no time period t then give
up"?
For some more background about our implementation in KFD, you can
refer to this whitepaper:
https://github.com/checkpoint-restore/criu/blob/criu-dev/plugins/amdgpu/README.md
Potential objections to a KFD-style CRIU API in DRM render nodes,
I'll address each of them in more detail below:
* Opaque information in the checkpoint data that user mode can't
interpret or do anything with
* A second API for creating objects (e.g. BOs) that is separate
from
the regular BO creation API
* Kernel mode would need to be involved in restoring BO sharing
relationships rather than replaying BO creation, export and
import
from user mode
# Opaque information in the checkpoint
This comes out of ABI compatibility considerations. Adding any
new objects or attributes to the driver/HW state that needs to be
checkpointed could potentially break the ABI of the CRIU
checkpoint/restore ioctl if the plugin needs to parse that
information. Therefore, much of the information in our KFD CRIU
ioctl API is opaque. It is written by kernel mode in the
checkpoint, it is consumed by kernel mode when restoring the
checkpoint, but user mode doesn't care about the contents or
binary layout, so there is no user mode ABI to break. This is how
we were able to maintain CRIU support when we added the SVM API
to KFD without changing the CRIU plugin and without breaking our
ABI.
Opaque information may also lend itself to API abstraction, if
this becomes a generic DRM API with driver-specific callbacks
that fill in HW-specific opaque data.
This feels sound in principle to me. Fundamentally the state is
very hardware specfic, and/or driver version specific, so I don't
see anything could be gained in practice by making it much less
opaque. (Apart from making things more complicated.)
I was however unsure of the current split of how you dump buffer
objects with some data in the defined bo structure, and some in
completely opaque private data. Is there a benefit to that split,
or maybe in other words, is there a benefit on having part
transparent and part opaque for buffer objects?
Some of the buffer object state is needed by the plugin. E.g. the
size and mmap offset are needed to match VMAs with BOs. I'd have to
review the plugin in detail to prove that all the fields are, in
fact, needed by the plugin, but that was the intent. Anything that
the plugin doesn't need to know should be in the opaque data
structures.
Right, got it.
Would it make sense to make the opaque data in the same block as the
defined one? I mean instead of separating the two in the binary image
for instance have struct kfd_criu_bo_bucket have a trailing priv_data
blob? Maybe it is too late now if the image format is not versioned
or something.
To slightly touch upon the question of whether this could become a
generic DRM API. It feels it would be hard to do it from the
start. What sounds more feasible is if/when generic looking
helpers can be spotted while developing the RFC then potentially
structure the code they can easily be promoted to shared/common at
some future moment.
Yes, that's how this usually goes, in my experience. Thanks for
confirming.
# Second API for creating objects
Creating BOs and other objects when restoring a checkpoint needs
more information than the usual BO alloc and similar APIs
provide. For example, we need to restore BOs with the same GEM
handles so that user mode can continue using those handles after
resuming execution. If BOs are shared through DMABufs without
dynamic attachment, we need to restore pinned BOs as pinned.
Validation of virtual addresses and handling MMU notifiers must
be suspended until the virtual address space is restored. For
user mode queues we need to save and restore a lot of queue
execution state so that execution can resume cleanly.
This also sounds justified to me. Restore creating all internal
objects is definitely special and sounds better to add uapi to
create them directly with the correct properties, than to add uapi
to adjust internal properties after creation. And in case you
would always need some new uapi - so at least to adjust after
creation. At which point you may have both in one. Internally
implementation can be split or common, whatever makes sense for a
given object type, but new uapi definitely sounds is required.
# Restoring buffer sharing relationships
Different GEM handles in different render nodes and processes can
refer to the same underlying shared memory, either by directly
pointing to the same GEM object, or by creating an import
attachment that may get its SG tables invalidated and updated
dynamically through dynamic attachment callbacks. In the latter
case it's obvious, who is the exporter and who is the importer.
In the first case, either one could be the exporter, and it's not
clear who would need to create the BO and who would need to
To see if I follow the former case correctly.
This could be two clients A and B, where B has imported a dma-buf
shared BO from A and has since closed the dma-buf fd? Which
results in a single BO with reference count of 2 and
obj->import_attach unset. History of who created the object is lost.
Yes. In the amdgpu driver this happens when the exporter and import
device are the same.
In fact it could even be that two imported objects remain (clients
A, B and C) and A, who originally created the BO, has since fully
released it. So any kind of "creator" tracking if added wouldn't
be fully reliable either.
That's a good point.
import it when restoring the checkpoint. To further complicate
things, multiple processes in a checkpoint get restored
concurrently. So there is no guarantee that an exporter has
restored a shared BO at the time an importer is trying to restore
its import.
A proposal to deal with these problems would be to treat
importers and exporters the same. Whoever restores first, ends up
creating the BO and potentially attaching to it. The other
process(es) can find BOs that were already restored by another
process by looking it up with a unique ID that could be based on
the DMABuf inode number. An alternative would be a two-pass
approach that needs to restore BOs on two passes:
1. Restore exported BOs
2. Restore imports
With some inter-process synchronization in CRIU itself between
these two passes. This may require changes in the core CRIU,
outside our plugin. Both approaches depend on identifying BOs
with some unique ID that could be based on the DMABuf inode
number in the checkpoint. However, we would need to identify the
processes in the same restore session, possibly based on
parent/child process relationships, to create a scope where those
IDs are valid during restore.
If my understanding above is on the right track, then I think this
is the only thing which can be done (for all scenarios).
I presented two alternatives. I think you're in favor of the first
one, where it doesn't matter who is the importer and exporter. I
think the two-pass approach requires that you can identify an
exporter. And as you pointed out, the exporter may already have
dropped their reference to the BO.
Yep.
I also *think* it would be safe. At least at the moment I cannot
think what could go wrong. Semantics are that it doesn't really
matter who created the object.
I would agree. What matters is that the object is recreated on the
correct device, and that all the direct references and import
attachments pointing to it are restored.
Finally, we would also need to checkpoint and restore DMABuf file
descriptors themselves. These are anonymous file descriptors. The
CRIU plugin could probably be taught to recreate them from the
original exported BO based on the inode number that could be
queried with fstat in the checkpoint. It would need help from the
render node CRIU API to find the right BO from the inode, which
may be from a different process in the same restore session.
This part feels like it is breaking the component separation a bit
because even for buffers fully owned by amdgpu, strictly speaking
the dma-buf fd is not. At least my understanding from the above is
that you propose to attempt to import the fd, from the kernel
side, during the checkpoint process? Like:
Checkpoint:
CRIU for each anon fd:
amdgpu_plugin(fd)
-> attempt in kernel dma buf import (passes fd to kernel via
ioctl?)
-> is it ours? (no -> error)
-> create a record mapping fd number to amdgpu BO
Restore:
for each dma-buf fd record:
create BO if does not exists
export BO to same fd
close BO handle if not in regular BO handle records
Or since you mention lookup by inode, that would need to be
dmabuf_plugin so it can lookup inodes in the private mount space.
However how would it co-operate with amdgpu_plugin is not clear to
me.
The way I think about the ownership is, whichever driver created the
underlying BO owns the checkpointing of the dmabuf. You need
driver-specific information to link the dmabuf with the driver's BO
and you need the right driver to recreate the BO and the dmabuf fd
when restoring the checkpoint.
It gets really interesting if you have an amdgpu plugin and an i915
plugin, and they checkpoint an application that shares BOs between
the two devices through DMABufs. E.g. if i915 created a BO and
amdgpu imported it, then during restore, i915 needs to restore the
dmabuf before the amdgpu import of it can be restored. I think that
brings us back to a two-phase approach to restoring the memory
sharing relationships. Uff.
I think this part of the discussion somewhat depends on the previous
part about idling. If it is feasible to completely idle and prune,
and fail if that is not happening quickly enough, then maybe there
wouldn't be too much hierarchical state to save.
Otherwise my idea was that there is a top-level drm_plugin.so which
understands amdgpu fds, i915, syncobj, sync_file, and uses some new
uapi to uniquely identify each, associate with the correct driver,
and then internally dispatches to amdgpu|i915|dmabuf|..._plugin.so.
Building the in memory representation of their relationships. As long
as all objects and their relationships have been recorded I think
everything could then be correctly restored.
It is possible there is flaw in my thinking and that something in
CRIU design would make this impossible? I think it would require the
top-level drm_plugin.so to hold all state in memory until the whole
checkpointing is done, and then verify something is not incomplete,
failing it all if it was. (For instance one plugin discovered an
reference to an object which was not discoverd by any other plugin or
things like that.) May need some further tweaks to CRIU common code.
Maybe I need to better understand how exactly you mean to query the
DRM driver about random anonymous fds. I see it as a problem in the
design, possibly even implementation, but maybe I am missing
something which makes it not so. I mean even with my general idea I
don't know how would one determine which driver to query about a
particular anonymous inode.
I later also realised that I was maybe increasing the scope for you
here. :) You did state focus is ROCm applications which possibly
doesn't care about dma-resv, fences, syncobjs etc?
That's my focus for now. But I don't want to engineer a solution
that would preclude your use cases in the future.
But I think the "how to handle dma-bufs" design question is still
relevant and interesting. For example I had this thought that
perhaps what would be needed is a CRIU plugin hierarchy.
Because fundamentally we would be snapshoting a hierarcy of kernel
objects belonging to different drivers (kfd, amdgpu, dma-buf, ...).
And if one day someone would to try to handle dma fences and drm
syncobjs, the argument for a hierarchial design would be even
stronger I think.
Something like a drm_plugin.so could call sub-plugins (amdgpu,
dma-buf, sync file, ...) and internally build the representation of
the whole state and how the relationship between the objects.
Maybe. I guess a structure similar to libdrm makes sense. I'm not
sure it's strictly a hierarchy. Maybe more like some common code
shared by multiple GPU driver plugins. I think the common checkpoint
state is quite limited and restoring it requires the GPU-specific
drivers anyway.
Also the idea of building a representation of the whole state
doesn't work well with the CRIU design, because "the whole state"
can include multiple processes that restore themselves concurrently
and only synchronize with each other in a few places in the restore
process. I feel, if we can work out how to checkpoint and restore
shared objects between processes, we can do the same for shared
objects between drivers without imposing a strict hierarchy and some
omniscient entity that needs to know "the whole state".
Okay, this continues on the same problem space as above. And you
obviously know how CRIU works much better than me.
With that kind of design there probably would be a need to define
some common kernel side api and uapi, so all involved objects can
be enumerated with some unique ids etc.
Now.. the counter argument.. the more state from different drivers
would one want to handle the bigger this project would get. Would
it even be feasible is the question, to the point that it may be
simpler to just run the workload in a VM via SR-IOV and simply
hibernate the whole thin guest. :)
Well, CRIU kind of tries to do that, but with containers instead of
VMs. ;)
It would definitely be useful for hardware and drivers without SR-IOV
support so lets hope it is doable. :)
Regards,
Tvrtko
