On 12/09/2018 14:38, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-09-12 14:34:16)
On 12/09/2018 12:11, Chris Wilson wrote:
If we try and fail to allocate a i915_request, we apply some
backpressure on the clients to throttle the memory allocations coming
from i915.ko. Currently, we wait until completely idle, but this is far
too heavy and leads to some situations where the only escape is to
declare a client hung and reset the GPU. The intent is to only ratelimit
the allocation requests, so we need only wait for a jiffie before using
the normal direct reclaim.
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106680
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
index 09ed48833b54..588bc5a4d18b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
@@ -736,7 +736,7 @@ i915_request_alloc(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, struct i915_gem_context *ctx)
ret = i915_gem_wait_for_idle(i915,
I915_WAIT_LOCKED |
I915_WAIT_INTERRUPTIBLE,
- MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);
+ 1);
if (ret)
goto err_unreserve;
What is the remaining value of even trying to wait for idle, instead of
maybe just i915_request_retire and sleep for a jiffie?
There's no point in the wait if actually idle? We just want the retire
and kicking of slabs.
Why there is no point? If allocation failed and we want to apply
backpressure, lets apply it.
Why would it matter which client first spotted GPU is idle and skipped
the sleep? What would happen if we added a random back-off in this case
between some bounds, like Ethernet frames if my memory serves me well.
Don't get me wrong, in practice it is minor point, I am purely thinking
that the message presence of i915_gem_wait_for_idle is maybe not clear
or is misleading.
Regards,
Tvrtko
The intention
would potentially read clearer since it is questionable there is any
relationship with idle and rate limiting clients. In fact, now that I
think of it, waiting for idle is a nice way to starve an unlucky client
forever.
See i915_gem_shrink. It's a seriously moot point. You can define any
pathology you'd like, someone has to lose.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
