On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 6:45 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
<tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 23/05/2022 23:53, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 7:45 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
> > <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Rob,
> >>
> >> On 28/07/2021 02:06, Rob Clark wrote:
> >>> From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> The drm/scheduler provides additional prioritization on top of that
> >>> provided by however many number of ringbuffers (each with their own
> >>> priority level) is supported on a given generation. Expose the
> >>> additional levels of priority to userspace and map the userspace
> >>> priority back to ring (first level of priority) and schedular priority
> >>> (additional priority levels within the ring).
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c | 4 +-
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c | 4 +-
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.h | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_submitqueue.c | 35 +++++++--------
> >>> include/uapi/drm/msm_drm.h | 14 +++++-
> >>> 5 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c
> >>> index bad4809b68ef..748665232d29 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c
> >>> @@ -261,8 +261,8 @@ int adreno_get_param(struct msm_gpu *gpu, uint32_t param, uint64_t *value)
> >>> return ret;
> >>> }
> >>> return -EINVAL;
> >>> - case MSM_PARAM_NR_RINGS:
> >>> - *value = gpu->nr_rings;
> >>> + case MSM_PARAM_PRIORITIES:
> >>> + *value = gpu->nr_rings * NR_SCHED_PRIORITIES;
> >>> return 0;
> >>> case MSM_PARAM_PP_PGTABLE:
> >>> *value = 0;
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c
> >>> index 450efe59abb5..c2ecec5b11c4 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c
> >>> @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ static struct msm_gem_submit *submit_create(struct drm_device *dev,
> >>> submit->gpu = gpu;
> >>> submit->cmd = (void *)&submit->bos[nr_bos];
> >>> submit->queue = queue;
> >>> - submit->ring = gpu->rb[queue->prio];
> >>> + submit->ring = gpu->rb[queue->ring_nr];
> >>> submit->fault_dumped = false;
> >>>
> >>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&submit->node);
> >>> @@ -749,7 +749,7 @@ int msm_ioctl_gem_submit(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> >>> /* Get a unique identifier for the submission for logging purposes */
> >>> submitid = atomic_inc_return(&ident) - 1;
> >>>
> >>> - ring = gpu->rb[queue->prio];
> >>> + ring = gpu->rb[queue->ring_nr];
> >>> trace_msm_gpu_submit(pid_nr(pid), ring->id, submitid,
> >>> args->nr_bos, args->nr_cmds);
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.h
> >>> index b912cacaecc0..0e4b45bff2e6 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.h
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.h
> >>> @@ -250,6 +250,59 @@ struct msm_gpu_perfcntr {
> >>> const char *name;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * The number of priority levels provided by drm gpu scheduler. The
> >>> + * DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_KERNEL priority level is treated specially in some
> >>> + * cases, so we don't use it (no need for kernel generated jobs).
> >>> + */
> >>> +#define NR_SCHED_PRIORITIES (1 + DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_HIGH - DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_MIN)
> >>> +
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * msm_gpu_convert_priority - Map userspace priority to ring # and sched priority
> >>> + *
> >>> + * @gpu: the gpu instance
> >>> + * @prio: the userspace priority level
> >>> + * @ring_nr: [out] the ringbuffer the userspace priority maps to
> >>> + * @sched_prio: [out] the gpu scheduler priority level which the userspace
> >>> + * priority maps to
> >>> + *
> >>> + * With drm/scheduler providing it's own level of prioritization, our total
> >>> + * number of available priority levels is (nr_rings * NR_SCHED_PRIORITIES).
> >>> + * Each ring is associated with it's own scheduler instance. However, our
> >>> + * UABI is that lower numerical values are higher priority. So mapping the
> >>> + * single userspace priority level into ring_nr and sched_prio takes some
> >>> + * care. The userspace provided priority (when a submitqueue is created)
> >>> + * is mapped to ring nr and scheduler priority as such:
> >>> + *
> >>> + * ring_nr = userspace_prio / NR_SCHED_PRIORITIES
> >>> + * sched_prio = NR_SCHED_PRIORITIES -
> >>> + * (userspace_prio % NR_SCHED_PRIORITIES) - 1
> >>> + *
> >>> + * This allows generations without preemption (nr_rings==1) to have some
> >>> + * amount of prioritization, and provides more priority levels for gens
> >>> + * that do have preemption.
> >>
> >> I am exploring how different drivers handle priority levels and this
> >> caught my eye.
> >>
> >> Is the implication of the last paragraphs that on hw with nr_rings > 1,
> >> ring + 1 preempts ring?
> >
> > Other way around, at least from the uabi standpoint. Ie. ring[0]
> > preempts ring[1]
>
> Ah yes, I figure it out from the comments but then confused myself when
> writing the email.
>
> >> If so I am wondering does the "spreading" of
> >> user visible priorities by NR_SCHED_PRIORITIES creates a non-preemptable
> >> levels within every "bucket" or how does that work?
> >
> > So, preemption is possible between any priority level before run_job()
> > gets called, which writes the job into the ringbuffer. After that
>
> Hmm how? Before run_job() the jobs are not runnable, sitting in the
> scheduler queues, right?
I mean, if prio[0]+prio[1]+prio[2] map to a single ring, submit A on
prio[1] could be executed after submit B on prio[2] provided that
run_job(submitA) hasn't happened yet. So I guess it isn't "really"
preemption because the submit hasn't started running on the GPU yet.
But rather just scheduling according to priority.
> > point, you only have "bucket" level preemption, because
> > NR_SCHED_PRIORITIES levels of priority get mapped to a single FIFO
> > ringbuffer.
>
> Right, and you have one GPU with four rings, which means you expose 12
> priority levels to userspace, did I get that right?
Correct
> If so how do you convey in the ABI that not all there priority levels
> are equal? Like userspace can submit at prio 4 and expect prio 3 to
> preempt, as would prio 2 preempt prio 3. While actual behaviour will not
> match - 3 will not preempt 4.
It isn't really exposed to userspace, but perhaps it should be..
Userspace just knows that, to the extent possible, the kernel will try
to execute prio 3 before prio 4.
> Also, does your userspace stack (EGL/Vulkan) use the priorities? I had a
> quick peek in Mesa but did not spot it - although I am not really at
> home there yet so maybe I missed it.
Yes, there is an EGL extension:
https://www.khronos.org/registry/EGL/extensions/IMG/EGL_IMG_context_priority.txt
It is pretty limited, it only exposes three priority levels.
BR,
-R
> > -----
> >
> > btw, one fun (but unrelated) issue I'm hitting with scheduler... I'm
> > trying to add an igt test to stress shrinker/eviction, similar to the
> > existing tests/i915/gem_shrink.c. But we hit an unfortunate
> > combination of circumstances:
> > 1. Pinning memory happens in the synchronous part of the submit ioctl,
> > before enqueuing the job for the kthread to handle.
> > 2. The first run_job() callback incurs a slight delay (~1.5ms) while
> > resuming the GPU
> > 3. Because of that delay, userspace has a chance to queue up enough
> > more jobs to require locking/pinning more than the available system
> > RAM..
>
> Is that one or multiple threads submitting jobs?
>
> > I'm not sure if we want a way to prevent userspace from getting *too*
> > far ahead of the kthread. Or maybe at some point the shrinker should
> > sleep on non-idle buffers?
>
> On the direct reclaim path when invoked from the submit ioctl? In i915
> we only shrink idle objects on direct reclaim and leave active ones for
> the swapper. It depends on how your locking looks like whether you could
> do them, whether there would be coupling of locks and fs-reclaim context.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
>
> > BR,
> > -R
> >
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Tvrtko
> >>
> >>> + */
> >>> +static inline int msm_gpu_convert_priority(struct msm_gpu *gpu, int prio,
> >>> + unsigned *ring_nr, enum drm_sched_priority *sched_prio)
> >>> +{
> >>> + unsigned rn, sp;
> >>> +
> >>> + rn = div_u64_rem(prio, NR_SCHED_PRIORITIES, &sp);
> >>> +
> >>> + /* invert sched priority to map to higher-numeric-is-higher-
> >>> + * priority convention
> >>> + */
> >>> + sp = NR_SCHED_PRIORITIES - sp - 1;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (rn >= gpu->nr_rings)
> >>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> + *ring_nr = rn;
> >>> + *sched_prio = sp;
> >>> +
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> /**
> >>> * A submitqueue is associated with a gl context or vk queue (or equiv)
> >>> * in userspace.
> >>> @@ -257,7 +310,8 @@ struct msm_gpu_perfcntr {
> >>> * @id: userspace id for the submitqueue, unique within the drm_file
> >>> * @flags: userspace flags for the submitqueue, specified at creation
> >>> * (currently unusued)
> >>> - * @prio: the submitqueue priority
> >>> + * @ring_nr: the ringbuffer used by this submitqueue, which is determined
> >>> + * by the submitqueue's priority
> >>> * @faults: the number of GPU hangs associated with this submitqueue
> >>> * @ctx: the per-drm_file context associated with the submitqueue (ie.
> >>> * which set of pgtables do submits jobs associated with the
> >>> @@ -272,7 +326,7 @@ struct msm_gpu_perfcntr {
> >>> struct msm_gpu_submitqueue {
> >>> int id;
> >>> u32 flags;
> >>> - u32 prio;
> >>> + u32 ring_nr;
> >>> int faults;
> >>> struct msm_file_private *ctx;
> >>> struct list_head node;
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_submitqueue.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_submitqueue.c
> >>> index 682ba2a7c0ec..32a55d81b58b 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_submitqueue.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_submitqueue.c
> >>> @@ -68,6 +68,8 @@ int msm_submitqueue_create(struct drm_device *drm, struct msm_file_private *ctx,
> >>> struct msm_gpu_submitqueue *queue;
> >>> struct msm_ringbuffer *ring;
> >>> struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched;
> >>> + enum drm_sched_priority sched_prio;
> >>> + unsigned ring_nr;
> >>> int ret;
> >>>
> >>> if (!ctx)
> >>> @@ -76,8 +78,9 @@ int msm_submitqueue_create(struct drm_device *drm, struct msm_file_private *ctx,
> >>> if (!priv->gpu)
> >>> return -ENODEV;
> >>>
> >>> - if (prio >= priv->gpu->nr_rings)
> >>> - return -EINVAL;
> >>> + ret = msm_gpu_convert_priority(priv->gpu, prio, &ring_nr, &sched_prio);
> >>> + if (ret)
> >>> + return ret;
> >>>
> >>> queue = kzalloc(sizeof(*queue), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -86,24 +89,13 @@ int msm_submitqueue_create(struct drm_device *drm, struct msm_file_private *ctx,
> >>>
> >>> kref_init(&queue->ref);
> >>> queue->flags = flags;
> >>> - queue->prio = prio;
> >>> + queue->ring_nr = ring_nr;
> >>>
> >>> - ring = priv->gpu->rb[prio];
> >>> + ring = priv->gpu->rb[ring_nr];
> >>> sched = &ring->sched;
> >>>
> >>> - /*
> >>> - * TODO we can allow more priorities than we have ringbuffers by
> >>> - * mapping:
> >>> - *
> >>> - * ring = prio / 3;
> >>> - * ent_prio = DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_MIN + (prio % 3);
> >>> - *
> >>> - * Probably avoid using DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_KERNEL as that is
> >>> - * treated specially in places.
> >>> - */
> >>> ret = drm_sched_entity_init(&queue->entity,
> >>> - DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_NORMAL,
> >>> - &sched, 1, NULL);
> >>> + sched_prio, &sched, 1, NULL);
> >>> if (ret) {
> >>> kfree(queue);
> >>> return ret;
> >>> @@ -134,16 +126,19 @@ int msm_submitqueue_create(struct drm_device *drm, struct msm_file_private *ctx,
> >>> int msm_submitqueue_init(struct drm_device *drm, struct msm_file_private *ctx)
> >>> {
> >>> struct msm_drm_private *priv = drm->dev_private;
> >>> - int default_prio;
> >>> + int default_prio, max_priority;
> >>>
> >>> if (!priv->gpu)
> >>> return -ENODEV;
> >>>
> >>> + max_priority = (priv->gpu->nr_rings * NR_SCHED_PRIORITIES) - 1;
> >>> +
> >>> /*
> >>> - * Select priority 2 as the "default priority" unless nr_rings is less
> >>> - * than 2 and then pick the lowest priority
> >>> + * Pick a medium priority level as default. Lower numeric value is
> >>> + * higher priority, so round-up to pick a priority that is not higher
> >>> + * than the middle priority level.
> >>> */
> >>> - default_prio = clamp_t(uint32_t, 2, 0, priv->gpu->nr_rings - 1);
> >>> + default_prio = DIV_ROUND_UP(max_priority, 2);
> >>>
> >>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ctx->submitqueues);
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/msm_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/msm_drm.h
> >>> index f075851021c3..6b8fffc28a50 100644
> >>> --- a/include/uapi/drm/msm_drm.h
> >>> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/msm_drm.h
> >>> @@ -73,11 +73,19 @@ struct drm_msm_timespec {
> >>> #define MSM_PARAM_MAX_FREQ 0x04
> >>> #define MSM_PARAM_TIMESTAMP 0x05
> >>> #define MSM_PARAM_GMEM_BASE 0x06
> >>> -#define MSM_PARAM_NR_RINGS 0x07
> >>> +#define MSM_PARAM_PRIORITIES 0x07 /* The # of priority levels */
> >>> #define MSM_PARAM_PP_PGTABLE 0x08 /* => 1 for per-process pagetables, else 0 */
> >>> #define MSM_PARAM_FAULTS 0x09
> >>> #define MSM_PARAM_SUSPENDS 0x0a
> >>>
> >>> +/* For backwards compat. The original support for preemption was based on
> >>> + * a single ring per priority level so # of priority levels equals the #
> >>> + * of rings. With drm/scheduler providing additional levels of priority,
> >>> + * the number of priorities is greater than the # of rings. The param is
> >>> + * renamed to better reflect this.
> >>> + */
> >>> +#define MSM_PARAM_NR_RINGS MSM_PARAM_PRIORITIES
> >>> +
> >>> struct drm_msm_param {
> >>> __u32 pipe; /* in, MSM_PIPE_x */
> >>> __u32 param; /* in, MSM_PARAM_x */
> >>> @@ -304,6 +312,10 @@ struct drm_msm_gem_madvise {
> >>>
> >>> #define MSM_SUBMITQUEUE_FLAGS (0)
> >>>
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * The submitqueue priority should be between 0 and MSM_PARAM_PRIORITIES-1,
> >>> + * a lower numeric value is higher priority.
> >>> + */
> >>> struct drm_msm_submitqueue {
> >>> __u32 flags; /* in, MSM_SUBMITQUEUE_x */
> >>> __u32 prio; /* in, Priority level */
