Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2018-06-11 14:46:07)
> On 11/06/18 13:10, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >
> > On 30/05/2018 15:33, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> >> There are concerns about denial of service around the per context sseu
> >> configuration capability. In a previous commit introducing the
> >> capability we allowed it only for capable users. This changes adds a
> >> new debugfs entry to let any user configure its own context
> >> powergating setup.
> >
> > As far as I understood it, Joonas' concerns here are:
> >
> > 1) That in the containers use case individual containers wouldn't be
> > able to turn on the sysfs toggle for them.
> >
> > 2) That also in the containers use case if box admin turns on the
> > feature, some containers would potentially start negatively affecting
> > the others (via the accumulated cost of slice re-configuration on
> > context switching).
> >
> > I am not familiar with typical container setups to be authoritative
> > here, but intuitively I find it reasonable that a low-level hardware
> > switch like this would be under the control of a master domain
> > administrator. ("If you are installing our product in the container
> > environment, make sure your system administrator enables this hardware
> > feature.", "Note to system administrators: Enabling this features may
> > negatively affect the performance of other containers.")
> >
> > Alternative proposal is for the i915 to apply an "or" filter on all
> > requested masks and in that way ensure dynamic re-configuration
> > doesn't happen on context switches, but driven from userspace via ioctls.
> >
> > In other words, should _all_ userspace agree between themselves that
> > they want to turn off a slice, they would then need to send out a
> > concerted ioctl storm, where number of needed ioctls equals the number
> > of currently active contexts. (This may have its own performance
> > consequences caused by the barriers needed to modify all context images.)
> >
> > This was deemed acceptable the the media use case, but my concern is
> > the approach is not elegant and will tie us with the "or" policy in
> > the ABI. (Performance concerns I haven't evaluated yet, but they also
> > may be significant.)
> >
> > If we go back thinking about the containers use case, then it
> > transpires that even though the "or" policy does prevent one container
> > from affecting the other from one angle, it also prevents one
> > container from exercising the feature unless all containers co-operate.
> >
> > As such, we can view the original problem statement where we have an
> > issue if not everyone co-operates, as conceptually the same just from
> > an opposite angle. (Rather than one container incurring the increased
> > cost of context switches to the rest, we would have one container
> > preventing the optimized slice configuration to the other.)
> >
> > From this follows that both proposals require complete co-operation
> > from all running userspace to avoid complete control of the feature.
> >
> > Since the balance between the benefit of optimized slice configuration
> > (or penalty of suboptimal one), versus the penalty of increased
> > context switch times, cannot be know by the driver (barring venturing
> > into the heuristics territory), that is another reason why I find the
> > "or" policy in the driver questionable.
> >
> > We can also ask a question of - If we go with the "or" policy, why
> > require N per-context ioctls to modify the global GPU configuration
> > and not instead add a global driver ioctl to modify the state?
> >
> > If a future hardware requires, or enables, the per-context behaviour
> > in a more efficient way, we could then revisit the problem space.
> >
> > In the mean time I see the "or" policy solution as adding some ABI
> > which doesn't do anything for many use cases without any way for the
> > sysadmin to enable it. At the same time master sysfs knob at least
> > enables the sysadmin to make a decision. Here I am thinking about a
> > random client environment where not all userspace co-operates, but for
> > instance user is running the feature aware media stack, and
> > non-feature aware OpenCL/3d stack.
> >
> > I guess the complete story boils down to - is the master sysfs knob
> > really a problem in container use cases.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tvrtko
>
> Hey Tvrtko,
>
> Thanks for summarizing a bunch of discussions.
> Essentially I agree with every you wrote above.
>
> If we have a global setting (determined by the OR policy), what's the
> point of per context settings?
>
> In Dmitry's scenario, all userspace applications will work together to
> reach the consensus so it sounds like we're reimplementing the policy
> that is already existing in userspace.
>
> Anyway, I'm implementing Joonas' suggestion. Hopefully somebody else
> than me pick one or the other :)
I'll just mention the voting/consensus approach to see if anyone else
likes it.
Each context has a CONTEXT_PARAM_HINT_SSEU { small, dontcare, large }
(or some other abstract names).
Then whenever the host cares, they can evaluate the set of hints
provided and make a choice on sseu config. One presumes a simple greater
good method (but you could extends that to include batch
frequency/duration to try and determine system impact on one setting or
another). Keeping it a hint helps reduce the effect of policy, though it
may still be policy and merit a switch for different implementations (or
BPF!).
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
