On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 11:11:03 +0100
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 10:32:18 +0100
> Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:10:53AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > Hi Daniel,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 22:47:02 +0100
> > > Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 at 09:46, Boris Brezillon
> > > > <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Daniel,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:40:21 +0100
> > > > > Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 06:17:48PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Jason,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 09:45:09 -0600
> > > > > > > Jason Ekstrand <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 1:40 PM Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 08:30:19AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 12:55:08 +0100
> > > > > > > > > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:20:42 +0100
> > > > > > > > > > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Matthew,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 14:21:11 -0800
> > > > > > > > > > > > Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In XE, the new Intel GPU driver, a choice has made to have a 1 to 1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping between a drm_gpu_scheduler and drm_sched_entity. At first
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > seems a bit odd but let us explain the reasoning below.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. In XE the submission order from multiple drm_sched_entity is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > guaranteed to be the same completion even if targeting the same
> > > > > > > > > hardware
> > > > > > > > > > > > > engine. This is because in XE we have a firmware scheduler, the
> > > > > > > > > GuC,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > which allowed to reorder, timeslice, and preempt submissions. If a
> > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > shared drm_gpu_scheduler across multiple drm_sched_entity, the TDR
> > > > > > > > > falls
> > > > > > > > > > > > > apart as the TDR expects submission order == completion order.
> > > > > > > > > Using a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dedicated drm_gpu_scheduler per drm_sched_entity solve this
> > > > > > > > > problem.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, that's interesting. I've been trying to solve the same sort of
> > > > > > > > > > > > issues to support Arm's new Mali GPU which is relying on a
> > > > > > > > > FW-assisted
> > > > > > > > > > > > scheduling scheme (you give the FW N streams to execute, and it does
> > > > > > > > > > > > the scheduling between those N command streams, the kernel driver
> > > > > > > > > > > > does timeslice scheduling to update the command streams passed to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > FW). I must admit I gave up on using drm_sched at some point, mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > because the integration with drm_sched was painful, but also because
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > felt trying to bend drm_sched to make it interact with a
> > > > > > > > > > > > timeslice-oriented scheduling model wasn't really future proof.
> > > > > > > > > Giving
> > > > > > > > > > > > drm_sched_entity exlusive access to a drm_gpu_scheduler probably
> > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > help for a few things (didn't think it through yet), but I feel it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > coming short on other aspects we have to deal with on Arm GPUs.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ok, so I just had a quick look at the Xe driver and how it
> > > > > > > > > > > instantiates the drm_sched_entity and drm_gpu_scheduler, and I think I
> > > > > > > > > > > have a better understanding of how you get away with using drm_sched
> > > > > > > > > > > while still controlling how scheduling is really done. Here
> > > > > > > > > > > drm_gpu_scheduler is just a dummy abstract that let's you use the
> > > > > > > > > > > drm_sched job queuing/dep/tracking mechanism. The whole run-queue
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You nailed it here, we use the DRM scheduler for queuing jobs,
> > > > > > > > > dependency tracking and releasing jobs to be scheduled when dependencies
> > > > > > > > > are met, and lastly a tracking mechanism of inflights jobs that need to
> > > > > > > > > be cleaned up if an error occurs. It doesn't actually do any scheduling
> > > > > > > > > aside from the most basic level of not overflowing the submission ring
> > > > > > > > > buffer. In this sense, a 1 to 1 relationship between entity and
> > > > > > > > > scheduler fits quite well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah, I think there's an annoying difference between what AMD/NVIDIA/Intel
> > > > > > > > want here and what you need for Arm thanks to the number of FW queues
> > > > > > > > available. I don't remember the exact number of GuC queues but it's at
> > > > > > > > least 1k. This puts it in an entirely different class from what you have on
> > > > > > > > Mali. Roughly, there's about three categories here:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Hardware where the kernel is placing jobs on actual HW rings. This is
> > > > > > > > old Mali, Intel Haswell and earlier, and probably a bunch of others.
> > > > > > > > (Intel BDW+ with execlists is a weird case that doesn't fit in this
> > > > > > > > categorization.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. Hardware (or firmware) with a very limited number of queues where
> > > > > > > > you're going to have to juggle in the kernel in order to run desktop Linux.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. Firmware scheduling with a high queue count. In this case, you don't
> > > > > > > > want the kernel scheduling anything. Just throw it at the firmware and let
> > > > > > > > it go brrrrr. If we ever run out of queues (unlikely), the kernel can
> > > > > > > > temporarily pause some low-priority contexts and do some juggling or,
> > > > > > > > frankly, just fail userspace queue creation and tell the user to close some
> > > > > > > > windows.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The existence of this 2nd class is a bit annoying but it's where we are. I
> > > > > > > > think it's worth recognizing that Xe and panfrost are in different places
> > > > > > > > here and will require different designs. For Xe, we really are just using
> > > > > > > > drm/scheduler as a front-end and the firmware does all the real scheduling.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How do we deal with class 2? That's an interesting question. We may
> > > > > > > > eventually want to break that off into a separate discussion and not litter
> > > > > > > > the Xe thread but let's keep going here for a bit. I think there are some
> > > > > > > > pretty reasonable solutions but they're going to look a bit different.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The way I did this for Xe with execlists was to keep the 1:1:1 mapping
> > > > > > > > between drm_gpu_scheduler, drm_sched_entity, and userspace xe_engine.
> > > > > > > > Instead of feeding a GuC ring, though, it would feed a fixed-size execlist
> > > > > > > > ring and then there was a tiny kernel which operated entirely in IRQ
> > > > > > > > handlers which juggled those execlists by smashing HW registers. For
> > > > > > > > Panfrost, I think we want something slightly different but can borrow some
> > > > > > > > ideas here. In particular, have the schedulers feed kernel-side SW queues
> > > > > > > > (they can even be fixed-size if that helps) and then have a kthread which
> > > > > > > > juggles those feeds the limited FW queues. In the case where you have few
> > > > > > > > enough active contexts to fit them all in FW, I do think it's best to have
> > > > > > > > them all active in FW and let it schedule. But with only 31, you need to be
> > > > > > > > able to juggle if you run out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's more or less what I do right now, except I don't use the
> > > > > > > drm_sched front-end to handle deps or queue jobs (at least not yet). The
> > > > > > > kernel-side timeslice-based scheduler juggling with runnable queues
> > > > > > > (queues with pending jobs that are not yet resident on a FW slot)
> > > > > > > uses a dedicated ordered-workqueue instead of a thread, with scheduler
> > > > > > > ticks being handled with a delayed-work (tick happening every X
> > > > > > > milliseconds when queues are waiting for a slot). It all seems very
> > > > > > > HW/FW-specific though, and I think it's a bit premature to try to
> > > > > > > generalize that part, but the dep-tracking logic implemented by
> > > > > > > drm_sched looked like something I could easily re-use, hence my
> > > > > > > interest in Xe's approach.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So another option for these few fw queue slots schedulers would be to
> > > > > > treat them as vram and enlist ttm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well maybe more enlist ttm and less treat them like vram, but ttm can
> > > > > > handle idr (or xarray or whatever you want) and then help you with all the
> > > > > > pipelining (and the drm_sched then with sorting out dependencies). If you
> > > > > > then also preferentially "evict" low-priority queus you pretty much have
> > > > > > the perfect thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that GuC with sriov splits up the id space and together with some
> > > > > > restrictions due to multi-engine contexts media needs might also need this
> > > > > > all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you're balking at the idea of enlisting ttm just for fw queue
> > > > > > management, amdgpu has a shoddy version of id allocation for their vm/tlb
> > > > > > index allocation. Might be worth it to instead lift that into some sched
> > > > > > helper code.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you mind pointing me to the amdgpu code you're mentioning here?
> > > > > Still have a hard time seeing what TTM has to do with scheduling, but I
> > > > > also don't know much about TTM, so I'll keep digging.
> > > >
> > > > ttm is about moving stuff in&out of a limited space and gives you some
> > > > nice tooling for pipelining it all. It doesn't care whether that space
> > > > is vram or some limited id space. vmwgfx used ttm as an id manager
> > > > iirc.
> > >
> > > Ok.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Either way there's two imo rather solid approaches available to sort this
> > > > > > out. And once you have that, then there shouldn't be any big difference in
> > > > > > driver design between fw with defacto unlimited queue ids, and those with
> > > > > > severe restrictions in number of queues.
> > > > >
> > > > > Honestly, I don't think there's much difference between those two cases
> > > > > already. There's just a bunch of additional code to schedule queues on
> > > > > FW slots for the limited-number-of-FW-slots case, which, right now, is
> > > > > driver specific. The job queuing front-end pretty much achieves what
> > > > > drm_sched does already: queuing job to entities, checking deps,
> > > > > submitting job to HW (in our case, writing to the command stream ring
> > > > > buffer). Things start to differ after that point: once a scheduling
> > > > > entity has pending jobs, we add it to one of the runnable queues (one
> > > > > queue per prio) and kick the kernel-side timeslice-based scheduler to
> > > > > re-evaluate, if needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm all for using generic code when it makes sense, even if that means
> > > > > adding this common code when it doesn't exists, but I don't want to be
> > > > > dragged into some major refactoring that might take years to land.
> > > > > Especially if pancsf is the first
> > > > > FW-assisted-scheduler-with-few-FW-slot driver.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see where there's a major refactoring that you're getting dragged into?
> > >
> > > Oh, no, I'm not saying this is the case just yet, just wanted to make
> > > sure we're on the same page :-).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes there's a huge sprawling discussion right now, but I think that's
> > > > just largely people getting confused.
> > >
> > > I definitely am :-).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wrt the actual id assignment stuff, in amdgpu at least it's few lines
> > > > of code. See the amdgpu_vmid_grab stuff for the simplest starting
> > > > point.
> > >
> > > Ok, thanks for the pointers. I'll have a look and see how I could use
> > > that. I guess that's about getting access to the FW slots with some
> > > sort of priority+FIFO ordering guarantees given by TTM. If that's the
> > > case, I'll have to think about it, because that's a major shift from
> > > what we're doing now, and I'm afraid this could lead to starving
> > > non-resident entities if all resident entities keep receiving new jobs
> > > to execute. Unless we put some sort of barrier when giving access to a
> > > slot, so we evict the entity when it's done executing the stuff it had
> > > when it was given access to this slot. But then, again, there are other
> > > constraints to take into account for the Arm Mali CSF case:
> > >
> > > - it's more efficient to update all FW slots at once, because each
> > > update of a slot might require updating priorities of the other slots
> > > (FW mandates unique slot priorities, and those priorities depend on
> > > the entity priority/queue-ordering)
> > > - context/FW slot switches have a non-negligible cost (FW needs to
> > > suspend the context and save the state every time there such a
> > > switch), so, limiting the number of FW slot updates might prove
> > > important
> >
> > I frankly think you're overworrying. When you have 31+ contexts running at
> > the same time, you have bigger problems. At that point there's two
> > use-cases:
> > 1. system is overloaded, the user will reach for reset button anyway
> > 2. temporary situation, all you have to do is be roughly fair enough to get
> > through it before case 1 happens.
> >
> > Trying to write a perfect scheduler for this before we have actual
> > benchmarks that justify the effort seems like pretty serious overkill.
> > That's why I think the simplest solution is the one we should have:
> >
> > - drm/sched frontend. If you get into slot exhaustion that alone will
> > ensure enough fairness
>
> We're talking about the CS ring buffer slots here, right?
>
> >
> > - LRU list of slots, with dma_fence so you can pipeline/batch up changes
> > as needed (but I honestly wouldn't worry about the batching before
> > you've shown an actual need for this in some benchmark/workload, even
> > piglit shouldn't have this many things running concurrently I think, you
> > don't have that many cpu cores). Between drm/sched and the lru you will
> > have an emergent scheduler that cycles through all runnable gpu jobs.
> >
> > - If you want to go fancy, have eviction tricks like skipping currently
> > still active gpu context with higher priority than the one that you need
> > to find a slot for.
> >
> > - You don't need time slicing in this, not even for compute. compute is
> > done with preempt context fences, if you give them a minimum scheduling
> > quanta you'll have a very basic round robin scheduler as an emergent
> > thing.
> >
> > Any workload were it matters will be scheduled by the fw directly, with
> > drm/sched only being the dma_fence dependcy sorter. My take is that if you
> > spend more than a hundred or so lines with slot allocation logic
> > (excluding the hw code to load/unload a slot) you're probably doing some
> > serious overengineering.
>
> Let me see if I got this right:
>
> - we still keep a 1:1 drm_gpu_scheduler:drm_sched_entity approach,
> where hw_submission_limit == available_slots_in_ring_buf
> - when ->run_job() is called, we write the RUN_JOB() instruction
> sequence to the next available ringbuf slot and queue the entity to
> the FW-slot queue
> * if a slot is directly available, we program the slot directly
> * if no slots are available, but some slots are done with the jobs
> they were given (last job fence signaled), we evict the LRU entity
> (possibly taking priority into account) and use this slot for the
> new entity
> * if no slots are available and all currently assigned slots
> contain busy entities, we queue the entity to a pending list
> (possibly one list per prio)
Forgot:
* if the group is already resident, we just move the slot to the
LRU list head.
>
> I'll need to make sure this still works with the concept of group (it's
> not a single queue we schedule, it's a group of queues, meaning that we
> have N fences to watch to determine if the slot is busy or not, but
> that should be okay).
