Hi, On 01/25/2018 06:30 PM, Christian König wrote: > Am 25.01.2018 um 17:47 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom: >> On 01/25/2018 03:57 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >>> On 01/25/2018 10:59 AM, Chunming Zhou wrote: >>>> there is a scheduling balance issue about get node like: >>>> a. process A allocates full memory and use it for submission. >>>> b. process B tries to allocates memory, will wait for process A BO >>>> idle in eviction. >>>> c. process A completes the job, process B eviction will put process >>>> A BO node, >>>> but in the meantime, process C is comming to allocate BO, whill >>>> directly get node successfully, and do submission, >>>> process B will again wait for process C BO idle. >>>> d. repeat the above setps, process B could be delayed much more. >>>> >>>> add a mutex to gerantee the allocation sequence for same domain. >>>> But there is a possibility that >>>> visible vram could be evicted to invisilbe, the tricky is they are >>>> same domain manager, so which needs a special handling. >>>> >>>> Change-Id: I260e8eb704f7b4788b071d3f641f21b242912256 >>>> Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou at amd.com> >>> >>> I think this is a good approach, however there are two things that >>> IMO needs fixing. [...] >> >> Thinking a bit more about this, the end result would be that typical >> "C" processes would get an unfair amount of GPU scheduling. >> Isn't it actually a scheduler's task outside of TTM to mitigate this? > > Yes, exactly the reason why I rejected this. I actually considered > moving the whole evicting to a background workitem. Ah,I should've read up on the following emails, Sorry about that. Thanks, Thomas
