On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 20:40:12 Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 5:44 PM Hillf Danton <hdanton@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 18:17:01 Kristian H. Kristensen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 4:02 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:24:19PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 12:21:45
> > > > > > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now that the inactive_list is protected by mm_lock, and everything
> > > > > > else on per-obj basis is protected by obj->lock, we no longer depend
> > > > > > on struct_mutex.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.c | 1 -
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c | 54 --------------------------
> > > > > > 2 files changed, 55 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -71,13 +33,8 @@ msm_gem_shrinker_scan(struct shrinker *shrinker, struct shrink_control *sc)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > struct msm_drm_private *priv =
> > > > > > container_of(shrinker, struct msm_drm_private, shrinker);
> > > > > > - struct drm_device *dev = priv->dev;
> > > > > > struct msm_gem_object *msm_obj;
> > > > > > unsigned long freed = 0;
> > > > > > - bool unlock;
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > - if (!msm_gem_shrinker_lock(dev, &unlock))
> > > > > > - return SHRINK_STOP;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mutex_lock(&priv->mm_lock);
> > > > >
> > > > > Better if the change in behavior is documented that SHRINK_STOP will
> > > > > no longer be needed.
> > > >
> > > > btw I read through this and noticed you have your own obj lock, plus
> > > > mutex_lock_nested. I strongly recommend to just cut over to dma_resv_lock
> > > > for all object lock needs (soc drivers have been terrible with this
> > > > unfortuntaly), and in the shrinker just use dma_resv_trylock instead of
> > > > trying to play clever games outsmarting lockdep.
> >
> > The trylock makes page reclaimers turn to their next target e.g. inode
> > cache instead of waiting for the mutex to be released. It makes sense
> > for instance in scenarios of mild memory pressure.
>
> is there some behind-the-scenes signalling for this, or is this just
> down to what the shrinker callbacks return?
Lets see what Dave may have in his mind about your questions.
> Generally when we get
> into shrinking, there are a big set of purgable bo's to consider, so
> the shrinker callback return wouldn't be considering just one
> potentially lock contended bo (buffer object). Ie failing one
> trylock, we just move on to the next.
>
> fwiw, what I've seen on the userspace bo cache vs shrinker (anything
> that is shrinker potential is in userspace bo cache and
> MADV(WONTNEED)) is that in steady state I see a very strong recycling
> of bo's (which avoids allocating and mmap'ing or mapping to gpu a new
> buffer object), so it is definitely a win in mmap/realloc bandwidth..
> in steady state there is a lot of free and realloc of same-sized
> buffers from frame to frame.
>
> But in transient situations like moving to new game level when there
> is a heavy memory pressure and lots of freeing old
> buffers/textures/etc and then allocating new ones, I see shrinker
> kicking in hard (in android situations, not so much so with
> traditional linux userspace)
>
> BR,
> -R
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > I recently wrote an entire blog length rant on why I think
> > > > mutex_lock_nested is too dangerous to be useful:
> > > >
> > > > https://blog.ffwll.ch/2020/08/lockdep-false-positives.html
> > > >
> > > > Not anything about this here, just general comment. The problem extends to
> > > > shmem helpers and all that also having their own locks for everything.
> > >
> > > This is definitely a tangible improvement though - very happy to see
> > > msm_gem_shrinker_lock() go.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Kristian H. Kristensen <hoegsberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > > -Daniel
> > > > --
> > > > 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
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
