On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 6:31 AM Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am 28.04.21 um 12:05 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:01:20PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 1:35 PM Simon Ser <contact@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, April 27th, 2021 at 7:31 PM, Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Ok. So that would only make the following use cases broken for now: > >>>>> > >>>>> - amd render -> external gpu > >>>>> - amd video encode -> network device > >>>> FWIW, "only" breaking amd render -> external gpu will make us pretty > >>>> unhappy > >>> I concur. I have quite a few users with a multi-GPU setup involving > >>> AMD hardware. > >>> > >>> Note, if this brokenness can't be avoided, I'd prefer a to get a clear > >>> error, and not bad results on screen because nothing is synchronized > >>> anymore. > >> It's an upcoming requirement for windows[1], so you are likely to > >> start seeing this across all GPU vendors that support windows. I > >> think the timing depends on how quickly the legacy hardware support > >> sticks around for each vendor. > > Yeah but hw scheduling doesn't mean the hw has to be constructed to not > > support isolating the ringbuffer at all. > > > > E.g. even if the hw loses the bit to put the ringbuffer outside of the > > userspace gpu vm, if you have pagetables I'm seriously hoping you have r/o > > pte flags. Otherwise the entire "share address space with cpu side, > > seamlessly" thing is out of the window. > > > > And with that r/o bit on the ringbuffer you can once more force submit > > through kernel space, and all the legacy dma_fence based stuff keeps > > working. And we don't have to invent some horrendous userspace fence based > > implicit sync mechanism in the kernel, but can instead do this transition > > properly with drm_syncobj timeline explicit sync and protocol reving. > > > > At least I think you'd have to work extra hard to create a gpu which > > cannot possibly be intercepted by the kernel, even when it's designed to > > support userspace direct submit only. > > > > Or are your hw engineers more creative here and we're screwed? > > The upcomming hardware generation will have this hardware scheduler as a > must have, but there are certain ways we can still stick to the old > approach: > > 1. The new hardware scheduler currently still supports kernel queues > which essentially is the same as the old hardware ring buffer. > > 2. Mapping the top level ring buffer into the VM at least partially > solves the problem. This way you can't manipulate the ring buffer > content, but the location for the fence must still be writeable. > > For now and the next hardware we are save to support the old submission > model, but the functionality of kernel queues will sooner or later go > away if it is only for Linux. Even if it didn't go away completely, no one else will be using it. This leaves a lot of under-validated execution paths that lead to subtle bugs. When everyone else moved to KIQ for queue management, we stuck with MMIO for a while in Linux and we ran into tons of subtle bugs that disappeared when we moved to KIQ. There were lots of assumptions about how software would use different firmware interfaces or not which impacted lots of interactions with clock and powergating to name a few. On top of that, you need to use the scheduler to utilize stuff like preemption properly. Also, if you want to do stuff like gang scheduling (UMD scheduling multiple queues together), it's really hard to do with kernel software schedulers. Alex > > So we need to work on something which works in the long term and get us > away from this implicit sync. > > Christian. > > > -Daniel > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
