On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 03:58:38PM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>
>
> On 08.06.2021 10:39, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >
> > On 07/06/2021 18:31, Matthew Brost wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:11:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 27/05/2021 15:35, Matthew Brost wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 11:02:24AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 26/05/2021 19:10, Matthew Brost wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [snip]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> +static int ct_send_nb(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> >>>>>>>>>> + const u32 *action,
> >>>>>>>>>> + u32 len,
> >>>>>>>>>> + u32 flags)
> >>>>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>>>> + struct intel_guc_ct_buffer *ctb = &ct->ctbs.send;
> >>>>>>>>>> + unsigned long spin_flags;
> >>>>>>>>>> + u32 fence;
> >>>>>>>>>> + int ret;
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ctb->lock, spin_flags);
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + ret = ctb_has_room(ctb, len + 1);
> >>>>>>>>>> + if (unlikely(ret))
> >>>>>>>>>> + goto out;
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + fence = ct_get_next_fence(ct);
> >>>>>>>>>> + ret = ct_write(ct, action, len, fence, flags);
> >>>>>>>>>> + if (unlikely(ret))
> >>>>>>>>>> + goto out;
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + intel_guc_notify(ct_to_guc(ct));
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> +out:
> >>>>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctb->lock, spin_flags);
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> + return ret;
> >>>>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> static int ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> >>>>>>>>>> const u32 *action,
> >>>>>>>>>> u32 len,
> >>>>>>>>>> @@ -473,6 +541,7 @@ static int ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> >>>>>>>>>> u32 response_buf_size,
> >>>>>>>>>> u32 *status)
> >>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>> + struct intel_guc_ct_buffer *ctb = &ct->ctbs.send;
> >>>>>>>>>> struct ct_request request;
> >>>>>>>>>> unsigned long flags;
> >>>>>>>>>> u32 fence;
> >>>>>>>>>> @@ -482,8 +551,20 @@ static int ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> >>>>>>>>>> GEM_BUG_ON(!len);
> >>>>>>>>>> GEM_BUG_ON(len & ~GUC_CT_MSG_LEN_MASK);
> >>>>>>>>>> GEM_BUG_ON(!response_buf && response_buf_size);
> >>>>>>>>>> + might_sleep();
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sleep is just cond_resched below or there is more?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, the cond_resched.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> + /*
> >>>>>>>>>> + * We use a lazy spin wait loop here as we believe that
> >>>>>>>>>> if the CT
> >>>>>>>>>> + * buffers are sized correctly the flow control condition
> >>>>>>>>>> should be
> >>>>>>>>>> + * rare.
> >>>>>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>>>>> +retry:
> >>>>>>>>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&ct->ctbs.send.lock, flags);
> >>>>>>>>>> + if (unlikely(!ctb_has_room(ctb, len + 1))) {
> >>>>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ct->ctbs.send.lock, flags);
> >>>>>>>>>> + cond_resched();
> >>>>>>>>>> + goto retry;
> >>>>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If this patch is about adding a non-blocking send function, and
> >>>>>>>>> below we can
> >>>>>>>>> see that it creates a fork:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> intel_guc_ct_send:
> >>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>> if (flags & INTEL_GUC_SEND_NB)
> >>>>>>>>> return ct_send_nb(ct, action, len, flags);
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ret = ct_send(ct, action, len, response_buf,
> >>>>>>>>> response_buf_size, &status);
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Then why is there a change in ct_send here, which is not the new
> >>>>>>>>> non-blocking path?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There is not a change to ct_send(), just to intel_guc_ct_send.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I was doing by the diff which says:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> static int ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> >>>>>>> const u32 *action,
> >>>>>>> u32 len,
> >>>>>>> @@ -473,6 +541,7 @@ static int ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> >>>>>>> u32 response_buf_size,
> >>>>>>> u32 *status)
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>> + struct intel_guc_ct_buffer *ctb = &ct->ctbs.send;
> >>>>>>> struct ct_request request;
> >>>>>>> unsigned long flags;
> >>>>>>> u32 fence;
> >>>>>>> @@ -482,8 +551,20 @@ static int ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> >>>>>>> GEM_BUG_ON(!len);
> >>>>>>> GEM_BUG_ON(len & ~GUC_CT_MSG_LEN_MASK);
> >>>>>>> GEM_BUG_ON(!response_buf && response_buf_size);
> >>>>>>> + might_sleep();
> >>>>>>> + /*
> >>>>>>> + * We use a lazy spin wait loop here as we believe that if
> >>>>>>> the CT
> >>>>>>> + * buffers are sized correctly the flow control condition
> >>>>>>> should be
> >>>>>>> + * rare.
> >>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>> +retry:
> >>>>>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&ct->ctbs.send.lock, flags);
> >>>>>>> + if (unlikely(!ctb_has_room(ctb, len + 1))) {
> >>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ct->ctbs.send.lock, flags);
> >>>>>>> + cond_resched();
> >>>>>>> + goto retry;
> >>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So it looks like a change to ct_send to me. Is that wrong?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What about this part - is the patch changing the blocking ct_send
> >>>>> or not,
> >>>>> and if it is why?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, ct_send() changes. Sorry for the confusion.
> >>>>
> >>>> This function needs to be updated to account for the H2G space and
> >>>> backoff if no space is available.
> >>>
> >>> Since this one is the sleeping path, it probably can and needs to be
> >>> smarter
> >>> than having a cond_resched busy loop added. Like sleep and get woken
> >>> up when
> >>> there is space. Otherwise it can degenerate to busy looping via
> >>> contention
> >>> with the non-blocking path.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That screams over enginerring a simple problem to me. If the CT channel
> >> is full we are really in trouble anyways - i.e. the performance is going
> >> to terrible as we overwhelmed the GuC with traffic. That being said,
> >
> > Performance of what would be terrible? Something relating to submitting
> > new jobs to the GPU I guess. Or something SRIOV related as you hint below.
> >
> > But there is no real reason why CPU cycles/power should suffer if GuC is
> > busy.
> >
> > Okay, if it can't happen in real world then it's possibly passable as a
>
> if that can't happen in real world, then maybe we can just return
> -ENOSPC/-EBUSY to report that 'unexpected' case, instead of hiding it
> behind silent busy loop ?
>
No. This is a blocking call, hence it is ok for the function block if it
doesn't have space /w a timeout.
Matt
> > design of a communication interface. But to me it leaves a bad taste and
> > a doubt that there is this other aspect of the real world. And that is
> > when the unexpected happens. Even the most trivial things like a bug in
> > GuC firmware causes the driver to busy spin in there. So not much
> > happening on the machine but CPU cores pinned burning cycles in this
> > code. It's just lazy and not robust design. "Bug #nnnnn - High CPU usage
> > and GUI blocked - Solution: Upgrade GuC firmware and _reboot_ the
> > machine". Oh well..
> >
> > At least I think the commit message should spell out clearly that a busy
> > looping path is being added to the sleeping send as a downside of
> > implementation choices. Still, for the record, I object to the design.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tvrtko
> >
> >> IGTs can do this but that really isn't a real world use case. For the
> >> real world, this buffer is large enough that it won't ever be full hence
> >> the comment + lazy spin loop.
> >>
> >> Next, it isn't like we get an interrupt or something when space
> >> becomes available so how would we wake this thread? Could we come up
> >> with a convoluted scheme where we insert ops that generated an interrupt
> >> at regular intervals, probably? Would it be super complicated, totally
> >> unnecessary, and gain use nothing - absolutely.
> >>
> >> Lastly, blocking CTBs really shouldn't ever be used. Certainly the
> >> submission code doesn't use these. I think SRIOV might, but those can
> >> probably be reworked too to use non-blocking. At some point we might
> >> want to scrub the driver and just delete the blocking path.
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >>> Regards,
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Tvrtko
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
