On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:52:54AM -0800, John Harrison wrote:
> On 1/11/2023 10:07, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 09:17:01AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > On 10/01/2023 19:01, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 04:50:55PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > > > On 10/01/2023 15:55, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 12:19:35PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > > > > > On 10/01/2023 11:28, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 09/01/2023 17:27, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> AFAICT it proposes to have 1:1 between *userspace* created
> > > > > > > > > contexts (per
> > > > > > > > > >>> context _and_ engine) and drm_sched. I am not sure avoiding
> > > > > > > > > invasive changes
> > > > > > > > > >>> to the shared code is in the spirit of the overall idea and
> > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > >>> opportunity should be used to look at way to refactor/improve
> > > > > > > > > drm_sched.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maybe? I'm not convinced that what Xe is doing is an abuse at all
> > > > > > > > > or really needs to drive a re-factor. (More on that later.)
> > > > > > > > > There's only one real issue which is that it fires off potentially a
> > > > > > > > > lot of kthreads. Even that's not that bad given that kthreads are
> > > > > > > > > pretty light and you're not likely to have more kthreads than
> > > > > > > > > userspace threads which are much heavier. Not ideal, but not the
> > > > > > > > > end of the world either. Definitely something we can/should
> > > > > > > > > optimize but if we went through with Xe without this patch, it would
> > > > > > > > > probably be mostly ok.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Yes, it is 1:1 *userspace* engines and drm_sched.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> I'm not really prepared to make large changes to DRM scheduler
> > > > > > > > > at the
> > > > > > > > > >> moment for Xe as they are not really required nor does Boris
> > > > > > > > > seem they
> > > > > > > > > >> will be required for his work either. I am interested to see
> > > > > > > > > what Boris
> > > > > > > > > >> comes up with.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Even on the low level, the idea to replace drm_sched threads
> > > > > > > > > with workers
> > > > > > > > > >>> has a few problems.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> To start with, the pattern of:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> while (not_stopped) {
> > > > > > > > > >>> keep picking jobs
> > > > > > > > > >>> }
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Feels fundamentally in disagreement with workers (while
> > > > > > > > > obviously fits
> > > > > > > > > >>> perfectly with the current kthread design).
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> The while loop breaks and worker exists if no jobs are ready.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm not very familiar with workqueues. What are you saying would fit
> > > > > > > > > better? One scheduling job per work item rather than one big work
> > > > > > > > > item which handles all available jobs?
> > > > > > > > Yes and no, it indeed IMO does not fit to have a work item which is
> > > > > > > > potentially unbound in runtime. But it is a bit moot conceptual mismatch
> > > > > > > > because it is a worst case / theoretical, and I think due more
> > > > > > > > fundamental concerns.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we have to go back to the low level side of things, I've picked this
> > > > > > > > random spot to consolidate what I have already mentioned and perhaps
> > > > > > > > expand.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To start with, let me pull out some thoughts from workqueue.rst:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > """
> > > > > > > > Generally, work items are not expected to hog a CPU and consume many
> > > > > > > > cycles. That means maintaining just enough concurrency to prevent work
> > > > > > > > processing from stalling should be optimal.
> > > > > > > > """
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For unbound queues:
> > > > > > > > """
> > > > > > > > The responsibility of regulating concurrency level is on the users.
> > > > > > > > """
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Given the unbound queues will be spawned on demand to service all queued
> > > > > > > > work items (more interesting when mixing up with the system_unbound_wq),
> > > > > > > > in the proposed design the number of instantiated worker threads does
> > > > > > > > not correspond to the number of user threads (as you have elsewhere
> > > > > > > > stated), but pessimistically to the number of active user contexts. That
> > > > > > > > is the number which drives the maximum number of not-runnable jobs that
> > > > > > > > can become runnable at once, and hence spawn that many work items, and
> > > > > > > > in turn unbound worker threads.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Several problems there.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is fundamentally pointless to have potentially that many more threads
> > > > > > > > than the number of CPU cores - it simply creates a scheduling storm.
> > > > > > > To make matters worse, if I follow the code correctly, all these per user
> > > > > > > context worker thread / work items end up contending on the same lock or
> > > > > > > circular buffer, both are one instance per GPU:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > guc_engine_run_job
> > > > > > > -> submit_engine
> > > > > > > a) wq_item_append
> > > > > > > -> wq_wait_for_space
> > > > > > > -> msleep
> > > > > > a) is dedicated per xe_engine
> > > > > Hah true, what its for then? I thought throttling the LRCA ring is done via:
> > > > >
> > > > This is a per guc_id 'work queue' which is used for parallel submission
> > > > (e.g. multiple LRC tail values need to written atomically by the GuC).
> > > > Again in practice there should always be space.
> > > Speaking of guc id, where does blocking when none are available happen in
> > > the non parallel case?
> > >
> > We have 64k guc_ids on native, 1k guc_ids with 64k VFs. Either way we
> > think that is more than enough and can just reject xe_engine creation if
> > we run out of guc_ids. If this proves to false, we can fix this but the
> > guc_id stealing the i915 is rather complicated and hopefully not needed.
> >
> > We will limit the number of guc_ids allowed per user pid to reasonible
> > number to prevent a DoS. Elevated pids (e.g. IGTs) will be able do to
> > whatever they want.
> What about doorbells? As some point, we will have to start using those and
> they are a much more limited resource - 256 total and way less with VFs.
>
We haven't thought about that one yet, will figure this one out when we
implement this.
Matt
> John.
>
