[AMD Official Use Only] That' really matter in practice, when two jobs from different process scheduled to the ring close to each other, if we don't discriminate A from B then B will be considered a bad job due to A's timeout, which will force B's process to exit (e.g.: X server) Thanks ------------------------------------------ Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team ------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 9:09 PM To: Koenig, Christian <Christian.Koenig@xxxxxxx> Cc: Grodzovsky, Andrey <Andrey.Grodzovsky@xxxxxxx>; Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx>; Liu, Monk <Monk.Liu@xxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3) On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 08:30:32PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > Yeah, that's what I meant with that the start of processing a job is a > bit swampy defined. > > Jobs overload, but we simply don't have another good indicator that a > job started except that the previous one completed. > > It's still better than starting the timer when pushing the job to the > ring buffer, because that is completely off. Not sure this matters that much really in practice, and in some cases we might want to actually just reset it all if the built up backlog is way too long. For anything that really runs way too long you want preempt-ctx/revoke fences anyway, not end-of-cs fences with tdr. -Daniel > > Christian. > > Am 27.08.21 um 20:22 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky: > > As I mentioned to Monk before - what about cases such as in this > > test - > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgi > > tlab.freedesktop.org%2Fmesa%2Fdrm%2F-%2Fcommit%2Fbc21168fa924d3fc4a0 > > 00492e861f50a1a135b25&data=04%7C01%7CMonk.Liu%40amd.com%7Cbd1847 > > 4429e34f8eaac208d96c80710e%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C > > 0%7C637660121179715855%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiL > > CJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=1WTD3 > > opiBtT29bbbqJub5nfhWgX5vMNppiFKgWDe%2FoQ%3D&reserved=0 > > > > Here you don't have serialized sequence where when jobs finishes > > processing and second starts, they execute together concurrently - > > for those cases seems to me restarting the timer for the second job > > from scratch will let it hang much longer then allowed by TO value. > > > > Andrey > > > > On 2021-08-27 10:29 a.m., Christian König wrote: > > > I don't think that makes sense. > > > > > > See we don't want to start the time when the job is inserted into > > > the ring buffer, but rather when it starts processing. > > > > > > Starting processing is a bit swampy defined, but just starting the > > > timer when the previous job completes should be fine enough. > > > > > > Christian. > > > > > > Am 27.08.21 um 15:57 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky: > > > > The TS represents the point in time when the job was inserted > > > > into the pending list. > > > > I don't think it matters when it actually starts to be > > > > processed, what matters is when this job was inserted into > > > > pending list because right at that point you arm the TO timer > > > > (when no other is running already) and so when the previous job > > > > completes and you cancel and rearm again you can use that TS > > > > from the next job in pending list to calculate how much time has > > > > actually left for it to run before TDR must be initiated and not > > > > just give it again full TO value to run even if it has already > > > > been running for a while. > > > > > > > > Also, i am not sure also about the assumption that what we > > > > measure is processing by HW, what we measure is from the moment > > > > it was scheduled to ring to the moment the job completed (EOP > > > > event). At least that what our TDR timer measures and so it > > > > makes sense to set the TS at this point. > > > > > > > > Andrey > > > > > > > > On 2021-08-27 3:20 a.m., Liu, Monk wrote: > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only] > > > > > > > > > > what is that 'ts' representing for ? it looks to me the > > > > > jiffies that it get scheduled to the ring, but a job > > > > > scheduled to the ring doesn't represent it's being processed > > > > > by hw. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > > Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team > > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Grodzovsky, Andrey <Andrey.Grodzovsky@xxxxxxx> > > > > > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 4:14 AM > > > > > To: Liu, Monk <Monk.Liu@xxxxxxx>; > > > > > amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Koenig, Christian > > > > > <Christian.Koenig@xxxxxxx> > > > > > Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out > > > > > calculation(v3) > > > > > > > > > > Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more > > > > > precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in > > > > > this thread. Let me know if this makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > Andrey > > > > > > > > > > On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote: > > > > > > On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote: > > > > > > > issue: > > > > > > > in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO > > > > > > > timer even the its corresponding job is still running. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix: > > > > > > > do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the > > > > > > > cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if > > > > > > > there is a "next" job we start_timeout again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > > > > further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling > > > > > > > if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v3: > > > > > > > change the issue description remove the > > > > > > > cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job > > > > > > > recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TODO: > > > > > > > 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to > > > > > > > serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. > > > > > > > 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to > > > > > > > above serialization (no race issue anymore with the > > > > > > > serialization) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Monk Liu <Monk.Liu@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 > > > > > > > ++++++++++--------------- > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > > > > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > > > > > > > index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > > > > > > > @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct > > > > > > > drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; > > > > > > > - /* > > > > > > > - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is > > > > > > > running OR thread > > > > > > > - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch > > > > > > > pending_list > > > > > > > - */ > > > > > > > - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && > > > > > > > - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || > > > > > > > - kthread_should_park()) > > > > > > > + if (kthread_should_park()) > > > > > > > return NULL; > > > > > > > > > > > > I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the > > > > > > other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending > > > > > > list anyway until sched thread came to full stop > > > > > > (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then > > > > > > a comment should be here i think. > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ > > > > > > > drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) > > > > > > > if (job && > > > > > > > dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { > > > > > > > /* remove job from pending_list */ > > > > > > > list_del_init(&job->list); > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + /* cancel this job's TO timer */ > > > > > > > + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); > > > > > > > /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > next = > > > > > > > list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, > > > > > > > typeof(*next), list); > > > > > > > - if (next) > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + if (next) { > > > > > > > next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = > > > > > > > job->s_fence->finished.timestamp; > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > + /* start TO timer for next job */ > > > > > > > + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > } else { > > > > > > > job = NULL; > > > > > > > - /* queue timeout for next job */ > > > > > > > - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); > > > > > > > @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void > > > > > > > *param) > > > > > > > (entity = > > > > > > > drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || > > > > > > > kthread_should_stop()); > > > > > > > - if (cleanup_job) { > > > > > > > + if (cleanup_job) > > > > > > > sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); > > > > > > > - /* queue timeout for next job */ > > > > > > > - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); > > > > > > > - } > > > > > > > if (!entity) > > > > > > > continue; > > > > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.ffwll.ch%2F&data=04%7C01%7CMonk.Liu%40amd.com%7Cbd18474429e34f8eaac208d96c80710e%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637660121179715855%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=yB5ssoeNrhCR6b%2BndHJd9IQK2mjoKlpyYP5noVeh0iA%3D&reserved=0
