On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/19/2011 09:37 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Thomas Hellstrom<thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11/19/2011 07:11 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Thomas Hellstrom >>> <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11/19/2011 03:53 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 11:07 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/19/2011 01:26 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 23:48 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/18/2011 06:26 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 15:30 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/18/2011 02:15 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 08:57 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jerome, >>> >>> I don't like this change for the following reasons >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -snip- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> One can take advantage of move notify callback but, there are >>> corner case where bind/unbind might be call without move notify >>> being call (in error path mostly). So to make sure that each >>> virtual address space have a consistent view of wether a buffer >>> object is backed or not by system page it's better to pass the >>> buffer object to bind/unbind. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> As I discussed previously with Jerome on IRC, I believe the >>> move_notify >>> hook is sufficient. I fixed a couple of issues back with it back >>> when I >>> implemented support for this in nouveau. >>> >>> Jerome did point out two issues however, which I believe can be >>> solved >>> easily enough. >>> >>> The first was that the error path after move_notify() has been >>> called >>> doesn't reverse the move_notify() too, leaving incorrect page table >>> entries. This, I think, could easily be solved by swapping bo->mem >>> and >>> mem, and re-calling move_notify() to have the driver reverse >>> whatever it >>> did. >>> >>> The second issue is that apparently move_notify() doesn't get called >>> in >>> the destroy path. Nouveau's GEM layer takes care of this for our >>> userspace bos, and we don't use any kernel bos that are mapped into >>> a >>> channel's address space so we don't hit it. This can probably be >>> solved >>> easily enough too I expect. >>> >>> Ben. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> OK. I understand. Surely if a move_notify is missing somewhere, that >>> can >>> easily be fixed. >>> >>> It might be good if we can outline how the virtual tables are set up. >>> In >>> my world, the following would happen: >>> >>> 1) Pre command submission: >>> >>> a) reserve bo >>> b) call ttm_bo_validate to set placement. move_notify will tear down >>> any >>> existing GPU page tables for the bo. >>> c) Set up GPU page tables. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Nouveau doesn't do this exactly. I wanted to avoid having to check if >>> a >>> bo was bound to a particular address space on every command >>> submission. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It perhaps might be a good idea to revisit this? >>> I think using move_notify to set up a new placement before the data has >>> actually been moved is very fragile and not the intended use. That >>> would >>> also save you from having to handle error paths. Also how do you handle >>> swapouts? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't see how it's fragile, there's only the one error path after that >>> point that needs to undo it. And, what *is* the expected use then? I >>> see it as "tell the driver the buffer is moving so it can do whatever is >>> necessary as a result". >>> >>> Swapouts are a missed case though, indeed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> A quick check in c) that the virtual map hasn't been torn down by a >>> move_notify and, in that case, rebuild it would probably be next to >>> free. The virtual GPU mapping would then be valid only after validation >>> and while the bo is fenced or pinned. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This alone doesn't solve the swapouts issue either unless you're also >>> wanting us to unmap once a buffer becomes unfenced, which would lead to >>> loads of completely unnecessary map/unmaps. >>> >>> Ben. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I think you misunderstand me a little. >>> The swapout issue should be handled by calling a move_notify() to kill >>> the virtual GPU mappings. >>> >>> However, when moving data that has page tables pointing to it, one >>> should (IMHO) do: >>> >>> 1) Kill the old page tables >>> 2) Move the object >>> 3) Set up new page tables on demand. >>> >>> This is done by TTM for CPU page tables and I think that should be done >>> also for GPU page tables. move_notify() should be responsible for 1), >>> The driver execbuf for 3), and 3) needs only to be done for the >>> particular ring / fifo which is executing commands that touch the buffer. >>> >>> This leaves a clear and well-defined requirement on TTM: >>> Notify the driver when it needs to kill its GPU page tables. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ok. This I don't really object to really. I read the previous mail as >>> that GPU mappings should only exist as long as the buffer is fenced, >>> which would be a ridiculous amount of overhead. >>> >>> >>> >>> I agree. What I meant was that the page tables wouldn't be considered >>> valid >>> when the fence had signaled. However that was actually incorrect because >>> they would actually be valid until the next move_notify(). The intention >>> was >>> never to tear down the mappings once the fence had signaled; that would >>> have >>> been pretty stupid. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> With the latest patch from jerome: >>> Notify the driver when it needs to rebuild it page tables. Also on error >>> paths, but not for swapins because no driver will probably set up GPU >>> page tables to SYSTEM_MEMORY. >>> >>> This is what I mean with fragile, and I much rather see the other >>> approach. >>> >>> Ben, I didn't fully understand why you didn't want to use that approach. >>> Did you see a significant overhead with it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now I'm more clear on what you meant, no, it wouldn't be a lot of >>> overhead. However, move_notify() was never intended for the use you're >>> proposing now, or the new ttm_mem_reg would never have been being passed >>> in as a parameter... >>> >>> >>> >>> I suppose you're right. Still I think this is the right way to go. Since >>> it >>> has the following advantages: >>> >>> 1) TTM doesn't need to care about the driver re-populating its GPU page >>> tables. >>> Since swapin is handled from the tt layer not the bo layer, this makes it >>> a >>> bit easier on us. >>> 2) Transition to page-faulted GPU virtual maps is straightforward and >>> consistent. A non-page-faulting driver sets up the maps at CS time, A >>> pagefaulting driver can set them up directly from an irq handler without >>> reserving, since the bo is properly fenced or pinned when the pagefault >>> happens. >>> 3) A non-page-faulting driver knows at CS time exactly which >>> page-table-entries really do need populating, and can do this more >>> efficiently. >>> >>> So unless there are strong objections I suggest we should go this way. >>> >>> Even if this changes the semantics of the TTM<-> driver interface >>> compared >>> to how Nouveau currently does things, it means that Jerome's current >>> patch >>> is basically correct and doesn't any longer have any assumptions about >>> SYSTEM memory never being used for virtual GPU maps. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Thomas. >>> >>> >>> I think it's better to let driver choose how it will handle its >>> virtual page table. For radeon i update in move_notify in order to >>> minimize the number of update. I don't want to track if an object have >>> been updated or not against each page table. Of course this add >>> possibly useless overhead to move notify as we might update page table >>> to many time (bo from vram->gtt->system) >>> >>> I think if move notify is properly call once for each effective move >>> driver can do their own dance behind curtain. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jerome >>> >>> >>> Jerome, >>> >>> It's not really what the driver does that is the problem, it's what the >>> driver expects from the driver<-> TTM interface. >>> >>> That's why I'd really like a maintainable interface design before coding >>> patches that makes the interface a set of various workarounds. >>> >>> Enforcing this will also force driver writers to think twice before >>> implementing things in their own way adding another load of ad hoc >>> callbacks >>> to TTM, without a clear specification but with the only purpose to fit a >>> specific driver implementation, so in a way it's our responsibility to >>> future driver writers to try to agree on a simple interface that works >>> well >>> and allows drivers to do an efficient implementation, and that adds a >>> little >>> maintenance burden on TTM. >>> >>> If a future driver writer looks at the Radeon code and replicates it, >>> because he thinks it's state of the art, and then finds out his code >>> breaks >>> because he can't use SYSTEM memory for GPU page tables, or use his own >>> private LRU, or the code breaks with partially populated TTMs and finally >>> finds it's quite inefficient too because it unnecessarily populates page >>> tables, we've failed. >>> >>> This is really the point I'd like to make, but as a side note, I'm not >>> asking you to track each bo against each page table. What I'm asking you >>> is >>> to not populate the page tables in bo_move() but in execbuf / pushbuf. >>> The >>> possibility to track a bo against each page table comes as a nice >>> benefit. >>> >>> >>> /Thomas >>> >>> >> >> I don't see the issue with updating page table in move_notify. That's >> what i do for radeon virtual memory, doing it in command buffer ioctl >> is kind of too costly. > > Could you describe why it is too costly? I previously asked Ben the same > thing and he said it didn't come with a substantial performance penalty. Why > would it be more than checking a single bool saying whether page tables had > previously been killed or not? This would really help me understand why you > want to do it from move_notify. So we have one page table for each opener of the drm file. This page table is in a bo, it's validated in vram when the virtual address page is in use. There could be several active page table at the same time (GPU working on different work load all possibly in different virtual address space). The page table also cover vram (everything is a page wether it's in system memory or vram). So in the end the pagetable can be quite big like 1M or bigger. Each page table can have the same bo at different virtual address (so no sharing btw page table). So if we were to build/update page table at each cs ioctl we are talking about moving around possibly several M of memory. Also if we want to go the update way only that means we need to track for each page table what was the last position of each bo we want to use, that sounds like a big loop. With move notify we update all page table in which the bo is mapped into. Assumption is that bo don't move often and when it does it will soon be use. Also that way we don't have to track anything. We know that at all point in time all the page table have an up to date entry for all the bo. >> Note that nouveau also update the page table in >> move_notify. So i think it's the right solution. TTM interface for >> move notify should just state that it will be call whenever a buffer >> change placement. Then we can add a comment on system buffer which can >> see there page disappear in thin air at any time. Note that when >> placement is system we mark all page table as invalid and point them >> to default entry (which is what nouveau is doing too). >> > > Well I've previously listed a number of disadvantages with this, which I > think are still valid, but I fail to see any advantages? Just proposed > workarounds for the disadvantages? (FWIW vmwgfx used to have GPU page tables > pointing to system memory, and I'd say it would be a pretty common use-case > for drivers that don't have a mappable GART). Ok there is 2 different thing for me, system placement in ttm is when the bo will never be use by the gpu (true for both radeon and nouveau). TTM_PL_TT is when a bo is bind to a gart and backed by system page. We know that the page will there as long as the bo is in use. PL_TT means the GPU page table point to system memory. So for me TTM_PL_SYSTEM == bo might have page but they might dissappear at anytime, TTM_PL_TT bo has page and they are there for good until the bo is no longer in use. So for me anytime bo placement change we need to call move notify (wether it's swapin, bo move or other ...) when placement become SYSTEM i assume that the bo is unbound and not in use and i update all page table for this bo to invalid entry. Now, i don't get the common use case for gpu without gart. For me dma is kind of a gart and should have its placement like TTM_PL_TT Cheers, Jerome _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
