Am 06.10.23 um 20:48 schrieb Ray Strode:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 3:12 AM Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote:
When the operation busy waits then that *should* get accounted to the
CPU time of the current process. When the operation sleeps and waits for
some interrupt for example it should not get accounted.
What you suggest is to put the parts of the operation which busy wait
into a background task and then sleep for that task to complete. This is
not a solution to the problem, but just hides it.
Actually, I think we both probably agree that there shouldn't be long
busy waits in the context of the current process. After all, we both
agree what the AMD DC driver code is doing is wrong.
To be clear, my take is, if driver code is running in process context
and needs to wait for periods of time on the order of or in excess of
a typical process time slice it should be sleeping during the waiting.
If the operation is at a point where it can be cancelled without side
effects, the sleeping should be INTERRUPTIBLE. If it's past the point
of no return, sleeping should be UNINTERRUPTIBLE. At no point, in my
opinion, should kernel code busy block a typical process for dozens of
milliseconds while keeping the process RUNNING. I don't think this is
a controversial take.
Exactly that's what I completely disagree on.
When the driver is burning CPU cycles on behalves of a process then
those CPU cycles should be accounted to the process causing this.
That the driver should probably improve it's behavior is a different issue.
Actually, I think (maybe?) you might even agree with that, but you're
also saying: user space processes aren't special here. While it's not
okay to busy block them, it's also not okay to busy block on the
system unbound workqueue either. If that's your sentiment, I don't
disagree with it.
No, it's absolutely ok to busy block them it's just not nice to do so.
As Daniel pointed out this behavior is not incorrect at all. The DRM
subsystem doesn't make any guarantee that drmModeAtomicCommit() will not
burn CPU cycles.
So I think we both agree the busy waiting is a problem, but maybe we
disagree on the best place for the problem to manifest when it
happens.
One thought re the DC code is regardless of where the code is running,
the scheduler is going to forcefully preempt it at some point right?
Any writereg/udelay(1)/readreg loop is going to get disrupted by a
much bigger than 1us delay by the kernel if the loop goes on long
enough. I'm not wrong about that? if that's true, the code might as
well switch out the udelay(1) for a usleep(1) and call it a day (well
modulo the fact I think it can be called from an interrupt handler; at
least "git grep" says there's a link_set_dpms_off in
link_dp_irq_handler.c)
Stuff like that is not a valid justification for the change. Ville
changes on the other hand tried to prevent lock contention which is a
valid goal here.
Okay so let's land his patchset! (assuming it's ready to go in).
Ville, is that something you'd want to resend for review?
Well, while Ville patch has at least some justification I would still
strongly object to move the work into a background thread to prevent
userspace from being accounted for the work it causes.
