Timeline semaphore waits (polling on memory) will be unmonitored and as fast as the roundtrip to memory. Semaphore writes will be slower because the copy of those write requests will also be forwarded to the kernel. Arbitrary writes are not protected by the hw but the kernel will take action against such behavior because it will receive them too.
I don't know if that would work with dma_fence.
Marek
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 3:04 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 02:28:06PM -0400, Marek Olšák wrote:
> The kernel will know who should touch the implicit-sync semaphore next, and
> at the same time, the copy of all write requests to the implicit-sync
> semaphore will be forwarded to the kernel for monitoring and bo_wait.
>
> Syncobjs could either use the same monitored access as implicit sync or be
> completely unmonitored. We haven't decided yet.
>
> Syncfiles could either use one of the above or wait for a syncobj to go
> idle before converting to a syncfile.
Hm this sounds all like you're planning to completely rewrap everything
... I'm assuming the plan is still that this is going to be largely
wrapped in dma_fence? Maybe with timeline objects being a bit more
optimized, but I'm not sure how much you can optimize without breaking the
interfaces.
-Daniel
>
> Marek
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:48 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 07:13:00PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > As long as we can figure out who touched to a certain sync object last
> > that
> > > would indeed work, yes.
> >
> > Don't you need to know who will touch it next, i.e. who is holding up your
> > fence? Or maybe I'm just again totally confused.
> > -Daniel
> >
> > >
> > > Christian.
> > >
> > > Am 14.06.21 um 19:10 schrieb Marek Olšák:
> > > > The call to the hw scheduler has a limitation on the size of all
> > > > parameters combined. I think we can only pass a 32-bit sequence number
> > > > and a ~16-bit global (per-GPU) syncobj handle in one call and not much
> > > > else.
> > > >
> > > > The syncobj handle can be an element index in a global (per-GPU)
> > syncobj
> > > > table and it's read only for all processes with the exception of the
> > > > signal command. Syncobjs can either have per VMID write access flags
> > for
> > > > the signal command (slow), or any process can write to any syncobjs and
> > > > only rely on the kernel checking the write log (fast).
> > > >
> > > > In any case, we can execute the memory write in the queue engine and
> > > > only use the hw scheduler for logging, which would be perfect.
> > > >
> > > > Marek
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 12:33 PM Christian König
> > > > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > <mailto:ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi guys,
> > > >
> > > > maybe soften that a bit. Reading from the shared memory of the
> > > > user fence is ok for everybody. What we need to take more care of
> > > > is the writing side.
> > > >
> > > > So my current thinking is that we allow read only access, but
> > > > writing a new sequence value needs to go through the
> > scheduler/kernel.
> > > >
> > > > So when the CPU wants to signal a timeline fence it needs to call
> > > > an IOCTL. When the GPU wants to signal the timeline fence it needs
> > > > to hand that of to the hardware scheduler.
> > > >
> > > > If we lockup the kernel can check with the hardware who did the
> > > > last write and what value was written.
> > > >
> > > > That together with an IOCTL to give out sequence number for
> > > > implicit sync to applications should be sufficient for the kernel
> > > > to track who is responsible if something bad happens.
> > > >
> > > > In other words when the hardware says that the shader wrote stuff
> > > > like 0xdeadbeef 0x0 or 0xffffffff into memory we kill the process
> > > > who did that.
> > > >
> > > > If the hardware says that seq - 1 was written fine, but seq is
> > > > missing then the kernel blames whoever was supposed to write seq.
> > > >
> > > > Just pieping the write through a privileged instance should be
> > > > fine to make sure that we don't run into issues.
> > > >
> > > > Christian.
> > > >
> > > > Am 10.06.21 um 17:59 schrieb Marek Olšák:
> > > > > Hi Daniel,
> > > > >
> > > > > We just talked about this whole topic internally and we came up
> > > > > to the conclusion that the hardware needs to understand sync
> > > > > object handles and have high-level wait and signal operations in
> > > > > the command stream. Sync objects will be backed by memory, but
> > > > > they won't be readable or writable by processes directly. The
> > > > > hardware will log all accesses to sync objects and will send the
> > > > > log to the kernel periodically. The kernel will identify
> > > > > malicious behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > Example of a hardware command stream:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > ImplicitSyncWait(syncObjHandle, sequenceNumber); // the sequence
> > > > > number is assigned by the kernel
> > > > > Draw();
> > > > > ImplicitSyncSignalWhenDone(syncObjHandle);
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm afraid we have no other choice because of the TLB
> > > > > invalidation overhead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marek
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 2:31 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > <mailto:daniel@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 03:58:26PM +0200, Christian König
> > wrote:
> > > > > > Am 09.06.21 um 15:19 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > > > > > [SNIP]
> > > > > > > > Yeah, we call this the lightweight and the heavyweight
> > > > > tlb flush.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The lighweight can be used when you are sure that you
> > > > > don't have any of the
> > > > > > > > PTEs currently in flight in the 3D/DMA engine and you
> > > > > just need to
> > > > > > > > invalidate the TLB.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The heavyweight must be used when you need to
> > > > > invalidate the TLB *AND* make
> > > > > > > > sure that no concurrently operation moves new stuff
> > > > > into the TLB.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The problem is for this use case we have to use the
> > > > > heavyweight one.
> > > > > > > Just for my own curiosity: So the lightweight flush is
> > > > > only for in-between
> > > > > > > CS when you know access is idle? Or does that also not
> > > > > work if userspace
> > > > > > > has a CS on a dma engine going at the same time because
> > > > > the tlb aren't
> > > > > > > isolated enough between engines?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More or less correct, yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem is a lightweight flush only invalidates the
> > > > > TLB, but doesn't
> > > > > > take care of entries which have been handed out to the
> > > > > different engines.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In other words what can happen is the following:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Shader asks TLB to resolve address X.
> > > > > > 2. TLB looks into its cache and can't find address X so it
> > > > > asks the walker
> > > > > > to resolve.
> > > > > > 3. Walker comes back with result for address X and TLB puts
> > > > > that into its
> > > > > > cache and gives it to Shader.
> > > > > > 4. Shader starts doing some operation using result for
> > > > > address X.
> > > > > > 5. You send lightweight TLB invalidate and TLB throws away
> > > > > cached values for
> > > > > > address X.
> > > > > > 6. Shader happily still uses whatever the TLB gave to it in
> > > > > step 3 to
> > > > > > accesses address X
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See it like the shader has their own 1 entry L0 TLB cache
> > > > > which is not
> > > > > > affected by the lightweight flush.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The heavyweight flush on the other hand sends out a
> > > > > broadcast signal to
> > > > > > everybody and only comes back when we are sure that an
> > > > > address is not in use
> > > > > > any more.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah makes sense. On intel the shaders only operate in VA,
> > > > > everything goes
> > > > > around as explicit async messages to IO blocks. So we don't
> > > > > have this, the
> > > > > only difference in tlb flushes is between tlb flush in the IB
> > > > > and an mmio
> > > > > one which is independent for anything currently being
> > > > > executed on an
> > > > > egine.
> > > > > -Daniel
> > > > > -- Daniel Vetter
> > > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > > > http://blog.ffwll.ch <http://blog.ffwll.ch>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Vetter
> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> >
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
