On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 03:06:15PM +0100, Christian König wrote: > Increase the ammount of system memory drivers can use to about 90% of > the total available. > > Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c > index a958135cb3fe..0a93df93dba4 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c > @@ -1267,7 +1267,7 @@ static int ttm_bo_global_init(void) > * the available system memory. > */ > num_pages = (u64)si.totalram * si.mem_unit; > - num_pages = (num_pages * 50 / 100) >> PAGE_SHIFT; > + num_pages = (num_pages * 90 / 100) >> PAGE_SHIFT; I don't think this is the design we want. As long as it was set at "half of system memory" it was clear that a) it's a hack b) precision didn't matter. But if you go to the limit and still want to keep the "we make sure there's no OOM", then precision starts to matter: - memory hotplug and hotunplug is a thing - userspace can mlock, and it's configureable - drivers can pin_user_pages for IO and random other stuff. Some of it is accounted as some subsystem specific mlock (like rdma does iirc), some is just yolo or short term enough (like) - none of what we do here takes into considerations any interactions with core mm tracking (like cgroups or numa or anything like that) If we want to drop the "half of system ram" limit (and yes that makes sense) I think the right design is: - we give up on the "no OOM" guarantee. - This means if you want real isolation of tasks, we need cgroups, and we need to integrate ttm cgroups with system memory cgroups somehow. Unlike randomly picked hardcoded limits this should work a lot more reliably and be a lot more useful in practical use in the field. - This also means that drivers start to fail in interesting ways. I think locking headaches are covered with all the lockdep annotations I've pushed, plus some of the things I still have in-flight (I have a might_alloc() annotations somewhere). That leaves validation of error paths for when allocations fail. Ime a very effective way we used in i915 is (ab)using EINTR restarting, which per drmIoctl uapi spec is requried. We could put a debug mode into ttm_tt which randomly fails with -EINTR to make sure it's all working correctly (plus anything else that allocates memory), and unlike real out-of-memory injection piglit and any other cts will complete without failure. Which gives us an excellent metric for "does it work". Actualy OOM, even injected one, tends to make stuff blow up in a way that's very hard to track and make sure you've got good coverage, since all your usual tests die pretty quickly. - ttm_tt needs to play fair with every other system memory user. We need to register a shrinker for each ttm_tt (so usually one per device I guess), which walks the lru (in shrink_count) and uses dma_resv_trylock for actual shrinking. We probably want to move it to SYSTEM first for that shrinker to pick up, so that there's some global fairness across all ttm_tt. - for GFP_DMA32 that means zone aware shrinkers. We've never used those, because thus far i915 didn't have any big need for low memory, so we haven't used this in practice. But it's supposed to be a thing. It's a bit more code than the oneliner above, but I also think it's a lot more solid. Plus it would resolve the last big issue where i915 gem is fairly fundamentally different compared to ttm. For that question I think once Maarten's locking rework for i915 has landed and all the other ttm rework from you and Dave is in, we've resolved them all. > /* But for DMA32 we limit ourself to only use 2GiB maximum. */ > num_dma32_pages = (u64)(si.totalram - si.totalhigh) * si.mem_unit; > -- > 2.25.1 > -- 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
