On 8/21/23 16:07, Christian König wrote:
Am 18.08.23 um 13:58 schrieb Danilo Krummrich:
[SNIP]
I only see two possible outcomes:
1. You return -EBUSY (or similar) error code indicating the the hw
can't receive more commands.
2. Wait on previously pushed commands to be executed.
(3. Your driver crash because you accidentally overwrite stuff in the
ring buffer which is still executed. I just assume that's prevented).
Resolution #1 with -EBUSY is actually something the UAPI should not
do, because your UAPI then depends on the specific timing of
submissions which is a really bad idea.
Resolution #2 is usually bad because it forces the hw to run dry
between submission and so degrade performance.
I agree, that is a good reason for at least limiting the maximum job
size to half of the ring size.
However, there could still be cases where two subsequent jobs are
submitted with just a single IB, which as is would still block
subsequent jobs to be pushed to the ring although there is still
plenty of space. Depending on the (CPU) scheduler latency, such a case
can let the HW run dry as well.
Yeah, that was intentionally not done as well. The crux here is that the
more you push to the hw the worse the scheduling granularity becomes.
It's just that neither Xe nor Nouveau relies that much on the scheduling
granularity at all (because of hw queues).
But Xe doesn't seem to need that feature and I would still try to avoid
it because the more you have pushed to the hw the harder it is to get
going again after a reset.
Surely, we could just continue decrease the maximum job size even
further, but this would result in further overhead on user and kernel
for larger IB counts. Tracking the actual job size seems to be the
better solution for drivers where the job size can vary over a rather
huge range.
I strongly disagree on that. A larger ring buffer is trivial to allocate
That sounds like a workaround to me. The problem, in the case above,
isn't that the ring buffer does not have enough space, the problem is
that we account for the maximum job size although the actual job size is
much smaller. And enabling the scheduler to track the actual job size is
trivial as well.
and if userspace submissions are so small that the scheduler can't keep
up submitting them then your ring buffer size is your smallest problem.
In other words the submission overhead will completely kill your
performance and you should probably consider stuffing more into a single
submission.
I fully agree and that is also the reason why I want to keep the maximum
job size as large as possible.
However, afaik with Vulkan it's the applications themselves deciding
when and with how many command buffers a queue is submitted (@Faith:
please correct me if I'm wrong). Hence, why not optimize for this case
as well? It's not that it would make another case worse, right?
- Danilo
Regards,
Christian.
- Danilo