On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:50:30 +0100
Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting Boris Brezillon (2017-09-27 13:41:41)
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:07:28 +0100
> > Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Boris Brezillon (2017-09-27 12:51:18)
> > > > +static void igt_vc4_trigger_purge(int fd)
> > > > +{
> > >
> > > May I suggest a /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches-esque interface?
> > > For when you want to explicitly control reclaim.
> >
> > Eric suggested to add a debugfs entry to control the purge, I just
> > thought I didn't really need it since I had a way to trigger this
> > mechanism without adding yet another userspace -> kernel interface that
> > will become part of the ABI and will have to be maintained forever.
> >
> > If you think this is preferable, I'll go for the debugfs hook.
>
> I think you will find it useful in future. i915's drop-caches also has
> options to make sure the GPU is idle, delayed frees are flushed, etc.
> One thing we found useful is that through a debugfs interface, we can
> pretend to be the shrinker/in-reclaim, setting
> fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL) around the operation. That gives us
> better lockdep coverage without having to trigger the shrinker.
>
> Our experience says that you will make good use of a drop-caches
> interface, it won't just be a one test wonder. :)
Just had a look at i915_drop_caches_fops [1] and it seems
over-complicated given what I can do in the VC4 driver: flush memory of
BOs that are marked purgeable.
Right now there's no shrinker object registered to the MM layer to help
the system release memory. The only one who can trigger a purge is the
VC4 BO allocator when it fails to allocate CMA memory.
Also note that all VC4 BOs are backed by CMA mem, so I'm not sure
plugging the BO purge system to the MM shrinker logic makes a lot of
sense (is the MM core expecting shrinkers to release memory coming from
the CMA pool?)
All this to say I'm not comfortable with designing a generic
"drop_caches" debugfs hook that would take various options to delimit
the scope of the cache-flush request. I'd prefer to have a simple
"purge_purgeable_bos" file that does not care about the input value and
flushes everything as soon as someone writes to it.
But let's wait for Eric's feedback, maybe he has other plans and a
better vision of what will be needed after this simple "purgeable-bo"
implementation I'm about to post.
Regards,
Boris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
