On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:16 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 9:39 AM Christian König > <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Am 25.09.20 um 01:14 schrieb Dave Airlie: > > > On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 22:42, Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> Am 24.09.20 um 07:18 schrieb Dave Airlie: > > >>> From: Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> > > >>> All the accel moves do the same pattern here, provide a helper > > >> And exactly that pattern I want to get away from. > > > Currently this is just refactoring out the helper code in each driver, but I see > > > since it calls bo_mem_space we are probably moving a bit in the wrong direction. > > > > Exactly that's why I'm noting this. > > > > > > > >> See what happens if we (for example) have a VRAM -> SYSTEM move is the > > >> following: > > >> > > >> 1. TTM allocates a new ttm_resource object in the SYSTEM domain. > > >> 2. We call the driver to move from VRAM to SYSTEM. > > >> 3. Driver finds that it can't do this and calls TTM to allocate GTT. > > >> 4. Since we are maybe out of GTT TTM evicts a different BO from GTT to > > >> SYSTEM and call driver again. > > >> > > >> This is a horrible ping/pong between driver/TTM/driver/TTM/driver and we > > >> should stop that immediately. > > >> > > >> My suggestion is that we rewrite how drivers call the ttm_bo_validate() > > >> function so that we can guarantee that this never happens. > > >> > > >> What do you think? > > > I think that is likely the next step I'd like to take after this > > > refactor, it's a lot bigger, and I'm not sure how it will look yet. > > > > Agree, yes. I have some ideas in mind for that, but not fully baked either. > > > > > Do we envision the driver calling validate in a loop but when it can't > > > find space it tells the driver and the driver does eviction and > > > recalls validate? > > > > Not in a loop, but more like in a chain. > > > > My plan is something like this: > > Instead of having "normal" and "busy" placement we have a flag in the > > context if evictions are allowed or not. > > The call to ttm_bo_validate are then replaced with two calls, first > > without evictions and if that didn't worked one with evictions. > > > > Then the normal validate sequence should look like this: > > 1. If a BO is in the SYSTEM (or SWAP domain) we validate it to GTT first > > with evictions=true. > > 2. If a BO should be in VRAM we then validate it to VRAM. If evictions > > are only allowed if the GEM flags say that GTT is not desired. > > That solves the trouble when you move a bo into vram as part of > validate. But I'm not seeing how this solves the "need gtt mapping to > move something out of vram" problem. > > Or should we instead move the entire eviction logic out from ttm into > drivers, building it up from helpers? Then drivers which need gtt for > moving stuff out of vram can do that right away. Also, this would > allow us to implement very fancy eviction algorithms like all the > nonsense we're doing in i915 for gtt handling on gen2/3 (but I really > hope that never ever becomes a thing again in future gpus, so this is > maybe more a what-if kind of thing). Not sure how that would look > like, maybe a special validate function which takes a ttm_resource the > driver already found (through evicting stuff or whatever) and then ttm > just does the move and book-keeping and everything. And drivers would > at first only call validate without allowing any eviction. Ofc anyone > without special needs could use the standard eviction function that > validate already has. Spinning this a bit more, we could have different default eviction functions with this, e.g. so all the drivers that need gtt mapping for moving stuff around can share that code, but with specific&flat control flow instead of lots of ping-ping. And drivers that don't need gtt mapping (like i915, we just need dma_map_sg which we assume works always, or something from the ttm dma page pool, which really always works) can then use something simpler that's completely flat. -Daniel > > > For special BOs, like amdgpus GDS, GWS and OA domain or VMWGFX special > > domains that will obviously look a bit different. > > > > Christian. > > > > > > > > Dave. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dri-devel mailing list > > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > > > > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
