> The question is how much later that is done. My recollection is that we don't reset that for resubmission, but that could be wrong.
According to my code (drm-next) VMID's "current_gpu_rest_counter" is updated in "vm_flush" routine, so it is always there for either resubmission or not ...
See the code in vm_flush():
if (vm_flush_needed) {
mutex_lock(&id_mgr->lock);
dma_fence_put(id->last_flush);
id->last_flush = dma_fence_get(fence);
id->current_gpu_reset_count =
atomic_read(&adev->gpu_reset_counter);
mutex_unlock(&id_mgr->lock);
}
/Monk
-----Original Message-----
From: amd-gfx <amd-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Liu, Monk
Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 10:22 PM
To: Koenig, Christian <Christian.Koenig@xxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Zhou, David(ChunMing) <David1.Zhou@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/3] drm/amdgpu: drop the sched_sync
> Anyway I think the cleanest approach to always handle that correctly would be to always insert a vm flush before all jobs on resubmission.
That is most likely better for VM flush handling as well.
Yeah, that’s true and more simple
/Monk
-----Original Message-----
From: Koenig, Christian
Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 9:59 PM
To: Liu, Monk <Monk.Liu@xxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Zhou, David(ChunMing) <David1.Zhou@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/amdgpu: drop the sched_sync
> and later its VMID's "current_gpu_reset_count" is updated to "adev->gpu_reset_count"
The question is how much later that is done. My recollection is that we don't reset that for resubmission, but that could be wrong.
Anyway I think the cleanest approach to always handle that correctly would be to always insert a vm flush before all jobs on resubmission.
That is most likely better for VM flush handling as well.
Christian.
Am 05.11.18 um 14:41 schrieb Liu, Monk:
> Hi Christian
>
> For scenario: Bad Job (hang, vmid1) -->Job A (context 10, explicit dep
> for Job B, vmid2) --> Job B(context 10, vmid2) --> Job C (context 11,
> vmid3)
>
> Assume "job_hang_limit" is 0, and assume "sched_hw_submission" is 4, I give a second thought on the logic after GPU reset:
>
> 1) the bad Job would be set guilty and skipped by scheduler,
> 2) the first re-submitted job (Job A) would be forced with a
> pipeline-sync,
> 3) the first re-submitted job (Job A) would be forced with a vm-flush, and later its VMID's "current_gpu_reset_count" is updated to "adev->gpu_reset_count"
> 4) the second re-submitted job (Job B, assume it was from the same context of Job A, share the same page table/process, and no vm_update needed ) would not be forced with a pipeline-sync, and neither a vm-flush ...
>
> Thus for Job B if it has an explicit dep on Job A, this explicit dep would get lost and there will be no pipeline sync inserted prior to Job B ...
>
> Do you think that's a possible corner case ?
>
> /Monk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koenig, Christian
> Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 3:48 PM
> To: Liu, Monk <Monk.Liu@xxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Zhou,
> David(ChunMing) <David1.Zhou@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/amdgpu: drop the sched_sync
>
> Am 05.11.18 um 08:24 schrieb Liu, Monk:
>>> David Zhou had an use case which saw a >10% performance drop the last time he tried it.
>> I really don't believe that, because if you insert a WAIT_MEM on an already signaled fence, it only cost GPU couple clocks to move on, right ? no reason to slow down up to 10% ... with 3dmark vulkan version test, the performance is barely different ... with my patch applied ...
> Why do you think that we insert a WAIT_MEM on an already signaled fence?
> The pipeline sync always wait for the last fence value (because we can't handle wraparounds in PM4).
>
> So you have a pipeline sync when you don't need one and that is really really bad for things shared between processes, e.g. X/Wayland and it's clients.
>
> I also expects that this doesn't effect 3dmark at all, but everything which runs in a window which is composed by X could be slowed down massively.
>
> David do you remember which use case was affected when you tried to drop this optimization?
>
>>> When a reset happens we flush the VMIDs when re-submitting the jobs to the rings and while doing so we also always do a pipeline sync.
>> I will check that point in my branch, I didn't use drm-next, maybe
>> there is gap in this part
> We had that logic for a very long time now, but we recently simplified it. Could be that there was a bug introduced doing so.
>
> Maybe we should add a specific flag to run_job() to note that we are re-running a job and then always add VM flushes/pipeline syncs?
>
> But my main question is why do you see any issues with quark? That is a workaround for an issue for Vulkan sync handling and should only surface when a specific test is run many many times.
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
>> /Monk
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Koenig, Christian
>> Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 3:02 AM
>> To: Liu, Monk <Monk.Liu@xxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/amdgpu: drop the sched_sync
>>
>>> Can you tell me which game/benchmark will have performance drop with this fix by your understanding ?
>> When you sync between submission things like composing X windows are slowed down massively.
>>
>> David Zhou had an use case which saw a >10% performance drop the last time he tried it.
>>
>>> The problem I hit is during the massive stress test against
>>> multi-process + quark , if the quark process hang the engine while there is another two job following the bad job, After the TDR these two job will lose the explicit and the pipeline-sync was also lost.
>> Well that is really strange. This workaround is only for a very specific Vulkan CTS test which we are still not 100% sure is actually valid.
>>
>> When a reset happens we flush the VMIDs when re-submitting the jobs to the rings and while doing so we also always do a pipeline sync.
>>
>> So you should never ever run into any issues in quark with that, even when we completely disable this workaround.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christian.
>>
>> Am 04.11.18 um 01:48 schrieb Liu, Monk:
>>>> NAK, that would result in a severe performance drop.
>>>> We need the fence here to determine if we actually need to do the pipeline sync or not.
>>>> E.g. the explicit requested fence could already be signaled.
>>> For the performance issue, only insert a WAIT_REG_MEM on GFX/compute ring *doesn't* give the "severe" drop (it's mimic in fact) ... At least I didn't observe any performance drop with 3dmark benchmark (also tested vulkan CTS), Can you tell me which game/benchmark will have performance drop with this fix by your understanding ? let me check it .
>>>
>>> The problem I hit is during the massive stress test against
>>> multi-process + quark , if the quark process hang the engine while there is another two job following the bad job, After the TDR these two job will lose the explicit and the pipeline-sync was also lost.
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW: for original logic, the pipeline sync have another corner case:
>>> Assume JobC depend on JobA with explicit flag, and there is jobB inserted in ring:
>>>
>>> jobA -> jobB -> (pipe sync)JobC
>>>
>>> if JobA really cost a lot of time to finish, in the
>>> amdgpu_ib_schedule() stage you will insert a pipeline sync for JobC against its explicit dependency which is JobA, but there is a JobB between A and C and the pipeline sync of before JobC will wrongly wait on the JobB ...
>>>
>>> while it is not a big issue but obviously not necessary: C have no
>>> relation with B
>>>
>>> /Monk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2018 3:50 AM
>>> To: Liu, Monk <Monk.Liu@xxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/amdgpu: drop the sched_sync
>>>
>>> Am 03.11.18 um 06:33 schrieb Monk Liu:
>>>> Reasons to drop it:
>>>>
>>>> 1) simplify the code: just introduce field member "need_pipe_sync"
>>>> for job is good enough to tell if the explicit dependency fence
>>>> need followed by a pipeline sync.
>>>>
>>>> 2) after GPU_recover the explicit fence from sched_syn will not
>>>> come back so the required pipeline_sync following it is missed,
>>>> consider scenario below:
>>>>> now on ring buffer:
>>>> Job-A -> pipe_sync -> Job-B
>>>>> TDR occured on Job-A, and after GPU recover:
>>>>> now on ring buffer:
>>>> Job-A -> Job-B
>>>>
>>>> because the fence from sched_sync is used and freed after
>>>> ib_schedule in first time, it will never come back, with this patch
>>>> this issue could be avoided.
>>> NAK, that would result in a severe performance drop.
>>>
>>> We need the fence here to determine if we actually need to do the pipeline sync or not.
>>>
>>> E.g. the explicit requested fence could already be signaled.
>>>
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Monk Liu <Monk.Liu@xxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ib.c | 16 ++++++----------
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c | 14 +++-----------
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.h | 3 +--
>>>> 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ib.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ib.c
>>>> index c48207b3..ac7d2da 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ib.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ib.c
>>>> @@ -122,7 +122,6 @@ int amdgpu_ib_schedule(struct amdgpu_ring *ring, unsigned num_ibs,
>>>> {
>>>> struct amdgpu_device *adev = ring->adev;
>>>> struct amdgpu_ib *ib = &ibs[0];
>>>> - struct dma_fence *tmp = NULL;
>>>> bool skip_preamble, need_ctx_switch;
>>>> unsigned patch_offset = ~0;
>>>> struct amdgpu_vm *vm;
>>>> @@ -166,16 +165,13 @@ int amdgpu_ib_schedule(struct amdgpu_ring *ring, unsigned num_ibs,
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> need_ctx_switch = ring->current_ctx != fence_ctx;
>>>> - if (ring->funcs->emit_pipeline_sync && job &&
>>>> - ((tmp = amdgpu_sync_get_fence(&job->sched_sync, NULL)) ||
>>>> - (amdgpu_sriov_vf(adev) && need_ctx_switch) ||
>>>> - amdgpu_vm_need_pipeline_sync(ring, job))) {
>>>> - need_pipe_sync = true;
>>>>
>>>> - if (tmp)
>>>> - trace_amdgpu_ib_pipe_sync(job, tmp);
>>>> -
>>>> - dma_fence_put(tmp);
>>>> + if (ring->funcs->emit_pipeline_sync && job) {
>>>> + if ((need_ctx_switch && amdgpu_sriov_vf(adev)) ||
>>>> + amdgpu_vm_need_pipeline_sync(ring, job))
>>>> + need_pipe_sync = true;
>>>> + else if (job->need_pipe_sync)
>>>> + need_pipe_sync = true;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> if (ring->funcs->insert_start) diff --git
>>>> a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
>>>> index 1d71f8c..dae997d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
>>>> @@ -71,7 +71,6 @@ int amdgpu_job_alloc(struct amdgpu_device *adev, unsigned num_ibs,
>>>> (*job)->num_ibs = num_ibs;
>>>>
>>>> amdgpu_sync_create(&(*job)->sync);
>>>> - amdgpu_sync_create(&(*job)->sched_sync);
>>>> (*job)->vram_lost_counter = atomic_read(&adev->vram_lost_counter);
>>>> (*job)->vm_pd_addr = AMDGPU_BO_INVALID_OFFSET;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -117,7 +116,6 @@ static void amdgpu_job_free_cb(struct drm_sched_job *s_job)
>>>> amdgpu_ring_priority_put(ring, s_job->s_priority);
>>>> dma_fence_put(job->fence);
>>>> amdgpu_sync_free(&job->sync);
>>>> - amdgpu_sync_free(&job->sched_sync);
>>>> kfree(job);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -127,7 +125,6 @@ void amdgpu_job_free(struct amdgpu_job *job)
>>>>
>>>> dma_fence_put(job->fence);
>>>> amdgpu_sync_free(&job->sync);
>>>> - amdgpu_sync_free(&job->sched_sync);
>>>> kfree(job);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -182,14 +179,9 @@ static struct dma_fence *amdgpu_job_dependency(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job,
>>>> bool need_pipe_sync = false;
>>>> int r;
>>>>
>>>> - fence = amdgpu_sync_get_fence(&job->sync, &need_pipe_sync);
>>>> - if (fence && need_pipe_sync) {
>>>> - if (drm_sched_dependency_optimized(fence, s_entity)) {
>>>> - r = amdgpu_sync_fence(ring->adev, &job->sched_sync,
>>>> - fence, false);
>>>> - if (r)
>>>> - DRM_ERROR("Error adding fence (%d)\n", r);
>>>> - }
>>>> + if (fence && need_pipe_sync && drm_sched_dependency_optimized(fence, s_entity)) {
>>>> + trace_amdgpu_ib_pipe_sync(job, fence);
>>>> + job->need_pipe_sync = true;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> while (fence == NULL && vm && !job->vmid) { diff --git
>>>> a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.h
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.h
>>>> index e1b46a6..c1d00f0 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.h
>>>> @@ -41,7 +41,6 @@ struct amdgpu_job {
>>>> struct drm_sched_job base;
>>>> struct amdgpu_vm *vm;
>>>> struct amdgpu_sync sync;
>>>> - struct amdgpu_sync sched_sync;
>>>> struct amdgpu_ib *ibs;
>>>> struct dma_fence *fence; /* the hw fence */
>>>> uint32_t preamble_status;
>>>> @@ -59,7 +58,7 @@ struct amdgpu_job {
>>>> /* user fence handling */
>>>> uint64_t uf_addr;
>>>> uint64_t uf_sequence;
>>>> -
>>>> + bool need_pipe_sync; /* require a pipeline sync for this job */
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> int amdgpu_job_alloc(struct amdgpu_device *adev, unsigned
>>>> num_ibs,
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
