On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 10:04:53PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > On 5/12/22 20:04, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, 12 May 2022 at 13:36, Dmitry Osipenko > > <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 5/11/22 22:09, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 07:06:18PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > >>>> On 5/11/22 16:09, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to ask you to reduce the scope of the patchset and build the > >>>>>>>>> shrinker only for virtio-gpu. I know that I first suggested to build > >>>>>>>>> upon shmem helpers, but it seems that it's easier to do that in a later > >>>>>>>>> patchset. > >>>>>>>> The first version of the VirtIO shrinker didn't support memory eviction. > >>>>>>>> Memory eviction support requires page fault handler to be aware of the > >>>>>>>> evicted pages, what should we do about it? The page fault handling is a > >>>>>>>> part of memory management, hence to me drm-shmem is already kinda a MM. > >>>>>>> Hm I still don't get that part, why does that also not go through the > >>>>>>> shmem helpers? > >>>>>> The drm_gem_shmem_vm_ops includes the page faults handling, it's a > >>>>>> helper by itself that is used by DRM drivers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I could try to move all the shrinker logic to the VirtIO and re-invent > >>>>>> virtio_gem_shmem_vm_ops, but what is the point of doing this for each > >>>>>> driver if we could have it once and for all in the common drm-shmem code? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Maybe I should try to factor out all the shrinker logic from drm-shmem > >>>>>> into a new drm-shmem-shrinker that could be shared by drivers? Will you > >>>>>> be okay with this option? > >>>>> I think we're talking past each another a bit. I'm only bringing up the > >>>>> purge vs eviction topic we discussed in the other subthread again. > >>>> > >>>> Thomas asked to move the whole shrinker code to the VirtIO driver and > >>>> I's saying that this is not a great idea to me, or am I misunderstanding > >>>> the Thomas' suggestion? Thomas? > >>> > >>> I think it was just me creating a confusion here. > >>> > >>> fwiw I do also think that shrinker in shmem helpers makes sense, just in > >>> case that was also lost in confusion. > >> > >> Okay, good that we're on the same page now. > >> > >>>>>>> I'm still confused why drivers need to know the difference > >>>>>>> between evition and purging. Or maybe I'm confused again. > >>>>>> Example: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If userspace uses IOV addresses, then these addresses must be kept > >>>>>> reserved while buffer is evicted. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If BO is purged, then we don't need to retain the IOV space allocated > >>>>>> for the purged BO. > >>>>> Yeah but is that actually needed by anyone? If userspace fails to allocate > >>>>> another bo because of lack of gpu address space then it's very easy to > >>>>> handle that: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Make a rule that "out of gpu address space" gives you a special errno > >>>>> code like ENOSPC > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. If userspace gets that it walks the list of all buffers it marked as > >>>>> purgeable and nukes them (whether they have been evicted or not). Then it > >>>>> retries the bo allocation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Alternatively you can do step 2 also directly from the bo alloc ioctl in > >>>>> step 1. Either way you clean up va space, and actually a lot more (you > >>>>> potentially nuke all buffers marked as purgeable, not just the ones that > >>>>> have been purged already) and only when va cleanup is actually needed > >>>>> > >>>>> Trying to solve this problem at eviction time otoh means: > >>>>> - we have this difference between eviction and purging > >>>>> - it's still not complete, you still need to glue step 2 above into your > >>>>> driver somehow, and once step 2 above is glued in doing additional > >>>>> cleanup in the purge function is just duplicated logic > >>>>> > >>>>> So at least in my opinion this isn't the justification we need. And we > >>>>> should definitely not just add that complication "in case, for the > >>>>> future", if we don't have a real need right now. Adding it later on is > >>>>> easy, removing it later on because it just gets in the way and confuses is > >>>>> much harder. > >>>> > >>>> The IOVA space is only one example. > >>>> > >>>> In case of the VirtIO driver, we may have two memory allocation for a > >>>> BO. One is the shmem allcation in guest and the other is in host's vram. > >>>> If we will only release the guest's memory on purge, then the vram will > >>>> remain allocated until BO is destroyed, which unnecessarily sub-optimal. > >>> > >>> Hm but why don't you just nuke the memory on the host side too when you > >>> evict? Allowing the guest memory to be swapped out while keeping the host > >>> memory allocation alive also doesn't make a lot of sense for me. Both can > >>> be recreated (I guess at least?) on swap-in. > >> > >> Shouldn't be very doable or at least worth the efforts. It's userspace > >> that manages data uploading, kernel only provides transport for the > >> virtio-gpu commands. > >> > >> Drivers are free to use the same function for both purge() and evict() > >> callbacks if they want. Getting rid of the purge() callback creates more > >> problems than solves, IMO. > > > > Hm this still sounds pretty funny and defeats the point of > > purgeable/evictable buffers a bit I think. But also I guess we'd > > pushed this bikeshed to the max, so I think if you make ->purge > > optional and just call ->evict if that's not present, and document it > > all in the kerneldoc, then I think that's good. > > This is a good enough compromise to me. > > > I just don't think that encouraging drivers to distinguish between > > evict/purge is a good idea for almost all of them. > > Intel's shrinker checks the "madvise" status of BOs and then decides > what to do based on it. Perhaps we could move the decision-making about > purging to drivers and then it will be single evict() callback, but will > drivers really ever need to be responsible for this decision-making or > this will be an unnecessary boilerplate code in the drivers? I'll think > more about this. tbh I wouldn't worry about details, you've convinced me that some differentiation between evict and purged makes sense. And yeah maybe drivers should have a helper to check that instead of explicit argument, but that's a bikeshed color choice which should be fairly easy to adjust later on still. > Thank you all for taking time to look at this patchset. I'm preparing > the new version. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
