On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 16:33:01 +0200 Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9/12/23 16:28, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:13:31 +0200 > > Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> I think that's a misunderstanding. I'm not trying to say that it is > >> *always* beneficial to fill up the ring as much as possible. But I think > >> it is under certain circumstances, exactly those circumstances I > >> described for Nouveau. > >> > >> As mentioned, in Nouveau the size of a job is only really limited by the > >> ring size, which means that one job can (but does not necessarily) fill > >> up the whole ring. We both agree that this is inefficient, because it > >> potentially results into the HW run dry due to hw_submission_limit == 1. > >> > >> I recognize you said that one should define hw_submission_limit and > >> adjust the other parts of the equation accordingly, the options I see are: > >> > >> (1) Increase the ring size while keeping the maximum job size. > >> (2) Decrease the maximum job size while keeping the ring size. > >> (3) Let the scheduler track the actual job size rather than the maximum > >> job size. > >> > >> (1) results into potentially wasted ring memory, because we're not > >> always reaching the maximum job size, but the scheduler assumes so. > >> > >> (2) results into more IOCTLs from userspace for the same amount of IBs > >> and more jobs result into more memory allocations and more work being > >> submitted to the workqueue (with Matt's patches). > >> > >> (3) doesn't seem to have any of those draw backs. > >> > >> What would be your take on that? > >> > >> Actually, if none of the other drivers is interested into a more precise > >> way of keeping track of the ring utilization, I'd be totally fine to do > >> it in a driver specific way. However, unfortunately I don't see how this > >> would be possible. > > > > I'm not entirely sure, but I think PowerVR is pretty close to your > > description: jobs size is dynamic size, and the ring buffer size is > > picked by the driver at queue initialization time. What we did was to > > set hw_submission_limit to an arbitrarily high value of 64k (we could > > have used something like ringbuf_size/min_job_size instead), and then > > have the control flow implemented with ->prepare_job() [1] (CCCB is the > > PowerVR ring buffer). This allows us to maximize ring buffer utilization > > while still allowing dynamic-size jobs. > > I guess this would work, but I think it would be better to bake this in, > especially if more drivers do have this need. I already have an > implementation [1] for doing that in the scheduler. My plan was to push > that as soon as Matt sends out V3. > > [1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/nouvelles/kernel/-/commit/269f05d6a2255384badff8b008b3c32d640d2d95 PowerVR's ->can_fit_in_ringbuf() logic is a bit more involved in that native fences waits are passed to the FW, and those add to the job size. When we know our job is ready for execution (all non-native deps are signaled), we evict already signaled native-deps (or native fences) to shrink the job size further more, but that's something we need to calculate late if we want the job size to be minimal. Of course, we can always over-estimate the job size, but if we go for a full-blown drm_sched integration, I wonder if it wouldn't be preferable to have a ->get_job_size() callback returning the number of units needed by job, and have the core pick 1 when the hook is not implemented.
