On 09/13/2018 07:38 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 06:52:43PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 09/13/2018 05:28 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 04:56:53PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 09/13/2018 04:10 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I think this could be better though ... if ida_alloc() ever starts
returning a different errno in the future, you'll hit the same problem,
right? So how about this ...
id = ida_alloc_max(&gman->gmr_ida, gman->max_gmr_ids - 1, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (id == -ENOMEM)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ if (id < 0)
+ return 0;
spin_lock(&gman->lock);
But I wonder ... why is -ENOMEM seen as a fatal error? If you free up
some memory, you'll free up an ID, so the next time around you should
be able to allocate an ID. So shouldn't this function just have
been doing this all along?
id = ida_alloc_max(&gman->gmr_ida, gman->max_gmr_ids - 1, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (id < 0)
+ return 0;
Non-fatal errors are errors that can be remedied by GPU buffer eviction, and
buffer eviction will free up IDA space, so basically we need to target only
the error code that indicates we've run out of IDA space.
Yes, but the following situation can happen:
- Allocate 1024 IDs
- Run very low on memory
- Allocating ID 1025 will fail (very very unlikely)
- ida_alloc_max() returns -ENOMEM
In this situation, we want ttm_mem_evict_first() to be called which will
free up one of the 1024 existing IDs and then we can allocate that ID for
our new node.
I'm assuming we're analysing the behaviour of ttm_bo_mem_force_space()
here.
Well, that's true, but that situation depends I guess very much on the radix
tree implementation of IDA?
The specific number 1024 depends on the current implementation, but
generally speaking at some point, the IDA has to allocate memory to store
one extra ID. Because the IDA cannot allocate memory when freeing an
ID, there is no more compact representation of the allocated IDs smaller
than a bitmap.
Also I would expect the eviction paths to try to
allocate more memory here and there, so to me the preferred option when
-ENOMEM happens, is really to back off as soon as possible to avoid
interfering with shrinker work going on etc.
I would be surprised if freeing resources needs memory to be allocated.
That's not supposed to happen; the filesystems go to great lengths to
pre-allocate enough memory that they can always write at least one dirty
page back to storage without allocating any memory, for example. Maybe
the DRM subsystem is different; I'm not an expert in your subsystem.
It's different. In particular when evicting a large buffer from VRAM
(which is on-card memory) to system memory, the subsystem may allocate a
huge amount of memory. But this particular case is not evicting from
VRAM (although it may lead to it).
My point was that your solution (detect the one error which should be
deemed as non-fatal) was not as robust as its inverse (detect the one
error which the previous code deemed as fatal). But I now believe no
error from the IDA should be seen as fatal.
If you insist, I can test on -ENOMEM instead of -ENOSPC to mimic the
pre-change behaviour. We should really focus on the IDA api changes here,
and defer changing -ENOMEM to non-fatal to a follow-up patch if needed.
I'd be comfortable with that solution for now.
OK, I'll respin and check for -ENOMEM instead.
Thanks,
Thomas
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
