On Wed, 2024-08-21 at 10:14 +0200, Christian König wrote: > Am 20.08.24 um 18:00 schrieb Thomas Hellström: > > > Or why exactly should shrinking fail? > > A common example would be not having runtime pm and the particular > > bo > > needs it to unbind, we want to try the next bo. Example: i915 GGTT > > bound bos and Lunar Lake PL_TT bos. > > WHAT? So you basically block shrinking BOs because you can't unbind > them > because the device is powered down? > > I would say that this is a serious NO-GO. It basically means that > powered down devices can lock down system memory for undefined amount > of > time. > > In other words an application can allocate memory, map it into GGTT > and > then suspend or even get killed and we are not able to recover the > memory because there is no activity on the GPU any more? > > That really sounds like a bug in the driver design to me. It's bad but it's not as bad as it sounds. Problem is we can't wake up during direct reclaim IIRC due to runtime pm lockdep violations, but we can and do fire up a thread to wake the device and after the wakeup delay have subsequent shrink calls succeed, or punt to kswapd or the oom handler. I think that's an orthogonal discussion, though. There are other reasons shrinking might fail, like the bo being busy in direct reclaim (shouldn't wait for idle there but ok in kswapd), Other points of failure is ofc shmem radix tree allocations (not seen one yet, though) which might succeed with a smaller bo. (Not saying, though, that there isn't more to be done with the xe runtime pm implementation). > > > And again, all other drm bo shrinkers do this. We just want to do > > the > > same. > > Do you have pointers? As Sima said, this is complicated but not beyond comprehension: i915 https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11-rc4/source/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_shrinker.c#L317 msm: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11-rc4/source/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_shrinker.c#L317 which uses https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11-rc4/source/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c#L1426 that is very similar in structure to what I implemented for TTM. Panfrost: (although only purgeable objects AFAICT). https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11-rc4/source/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c#L1426 > > > > > If we bump LRU we could end up with infinite loops. > > > > So IMO we need to be able to loop. I don't really care wether > > > > we do > > > > this as an explicit loop or whether we use the LRU walker, but > > > > I > > > > think > > > > from a maintainability point-of-view it is better to keep LRU > > > > walking > > > > in a single place. > > > > > > > > If we return an unlocked object, we'd need to refcount and drop > > > > the > > > > lru > > > > lock, but maybe that's not a bad thing. > > > > > > > > But what's the main drawback of exporting the existing helper. > > > Well that we re-creates exactly the mid-layer mess I worked so > > > hard > > > to > > > remove from TTM. > > It doesn't IMO. I agree the first attempt did. This affects only > > the > > LRU iteration itself and I'm even fine to get rid of the callback > > using > > a for_ macro. > > Well, I mean using a for_each approach is objectively better than > having > a callback and a state bag. > > But the fundamental question is if drivers are allowed to reject > shrinking. And I think the answer is no, they need to be designed in > a > way where shrinking is always possible. Rejects can be out of our control, due to anticipated deadlocks, oom and deferring to kswapd. > > What can be that we can't get the necessary locks to evict and object > (because it's about to be used etc...), but that are the per- > requisites > TTM should be checking. > > > > > In any case, I don't think TTM should enforce a different way > > > > of > > > > shrinking by the means of a severely restricted helper? > > > Well, as far as I can see that is exactly what TTM should do. > > > > > > I mean the main advantage to make a common component is to > > > enforce > > > correct behavior. > > But if all other drivers don't agree this as correct behavior and > > instead want to keep behavior that is proven to work, that's a dead > > end. > > Well no, even if all drivers agree to (for example) drop security > precautions it's still not something acceptable. > > And same thing here, if we block shrinking because drivers think they > want their runtime PM implemented in a certain way then upstream > needs > to block this and push back. > > As far as I can see it's mandatory to have shrinkers not depend on > runtime PM, cause otherwise you run into resources handling which > depends on the well behavior of userspace and that in turn in > something > we can't allow. Please see the above explanation for runtime pm, and for the record I agree that enforcing disallowed or security violations is a completely valid thing. /Thomas > > Regards, > Christian. > > > > > /Thomas > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Christian. > > > > > > > /Thomas > > > >
