On 2017å¹´11æ??09æ?¥ 16:59, Christian König wrote:
> Deleted BOs with the same reservation object can be reaped even if they
> can't be reserved.
>
> v2: rebase and we still need to remove/add the BO from/to the LRU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> index 50a678b504f3..6545c4344684 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> @@ -735,20 +735,37 @@ bool ttm_bo_eviction_valuable(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(ttm_bo_eviction_valuable);
>
> static int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev,
> - uint32_t mem_type,
> - const struct ttm_place *place,
> - bool interruptible,
> - bool no_wait_gpu)
> + struct reservation_object *resv,
> + uint32_t mem_type,
> + const struct ttm_place *place,
> + bool interruptible,
> + bool no_wait_gpu)
> {
> struct ttm_bo_global *glob = bdev->glob;
> struct ttm_mem_type_manager *man = &bdev->man[mem_type];
> struct ttm_buffer_object *bo;
> int ret = -EBUSY;
> + bool locked;
> unsigned i;
>
> spin_lock(&glob->lru_lock);
> for (i = 0; i < TTM_MAX_BO_PRIORITY; ++i) {
> list_for_each_entry(bo, &man->lru[i], lru) {
> + if (bo->resv == resv) {
> + if (list_empty(&bo->ddestroy))
> + continue;
I don't think only destroying BO can be evicted under per-vm-bo case,
but also normal BO should as well.
I'd give an example:
1. vm-A allocates all vram;
2. vm-B also try to allocate full vram, so the BOs of vram in vm-A will
be evicted to GTT.
3. vm-A is trying to allocate all GTT, if we don't allow eviction or
swap, then will fail here.
As above, we shouldn't disallow eviction and swap during allocation, we
aren't able to predict what case happen.
For over limit allocation, at worst, they will be returned with failed
status while doing its CS.
If you think the allocation shouldn't be over limitation of memory, we
can add the checking condition before allocation every time, but not
disallow eviction and swap in allocation, which really breaks the used TTM.
Regards,
David Zhou
> +
> + if (place &&
> + !bdev->driver->eviction_valuable(bo, place))
> + continue;
> +
> + ttm_bo_del_from_lru(bo);
> +
> + ret = 0;
> + locked = false;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> ret = reservation_object_trylock(bo->resv) ? 0 : -EBUSY;
> if (ret)
> continue;
> @@ -760,6 +777,7 @@ static int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev,
> continue;
> }
>
> + locked = true;
> break;
> }
>
> @@ -775,7 +793,8 @@ static int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev,
> kref_get(&bo->list_kref);
>
> if (!list_empty(&bo->ddestroy)) {
> - ret = ttm_bo_cleanup_refs(bo, interruptible, no_wait_gpu, true);
> + ret = ttm_bo_cleanup_refs(bo, interruptible, no_wait_gpu,
> + locked);
> kref_put(&bo->list_kref, ttm_bo_release_list);
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -786,7 +805,10 @@ static int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev,
> BUG_ON(ret != 0);
>
> ret = ttm_bo_evict(bo, interruptible, no_wait_gpu);
> - ttm_bo_unreserve(bo);
> + if (locked)
> + ttm_bo_unreserve(bo);
> + else
> + ttm_bo_add_to_lru(bo);
>
> kref_put(&bo->list_kref, ttm_bo_release_list);
> return ret;
> @@ -850,7 +872,7 @@ static int ttm_bo_mem_force_space(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> return ret;
> if (mem->mm_node)
> break;
> - ret = ttm_mem_evict_first(bdev, mem_type, place,
> + ret = ttm_mem_evict_first(bdev, bo->resv, mem_type, place,
> interruptible, no_wait_gpu);
> if (unlikely(ret != 0))
> return ret;
> @@ -1353,7 +1375,8 @@ static int ttm_bo_force_list_clean(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev,
> for (i = 0; i < TTM_MAX_BO_PRIORITY; ++i) {
> while (!list_empty(&man->lru[i])) {
> spin_unlock(&glob->lru_lock);
> - ret = ttm_mem_evict_first(bdev, mem_type, NULL, false, false);
> + ret = ttm_mem_evict_first(bdev, NULL, mem_type, NULL,
> + false, false);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> spin_lock(&glob->lru_lock);
