On 3/2/2022 03:07, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 01/03/2022 20:59, John Harrison wrote:
On 3/1/2022 04:09, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
I'll trim it a bit again..
On 28/02/2022 18:55, John Harrison wrote:
On 2/28/2022 09:12, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 25/02/2022 18:48, John Harrison wrote:
On 2/25/2022 10:14, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
[snip]
Your only objection is that ends up with too long total time
before reset? Or something else as well?
An unnecessarily long total heartbeat timeout is the main
objection. (2.5 + 12) * 5 = 72.5 seconds. That is a massive
change from the current 12.5s.
If we are happy with that huge increase then fine. But I'm pretty
sure you are going to get a lot more bug reports about hung
systems not recovering. 10-20s is just about long enough for
someone to wait before leaning on the power button of their
machine. Over a minute is not. That kind of delay is going to
cause support issues.
Sorry I wrote 12s, while you actually said tP * 12, so 7.68s,
chosen just so it is longer than tH * 3?
And how do you keep coming up with factor of five? Isn't it four
periods before "heartbeat stopped"? (Prio normal, hearbeat,
barrier and then reset.)
Prio starts at low not normal.
Right, slipped my mind since I only keep seeing that one priority
ladder block in intel_engine_heartbeat.c/heartbeat()..
From the point of view of user experience I agree reasonable
responsiveness is needed before user "reaches for the power button".
In your proposal we are talking about 3 * 2.5s + 2 * 7.5s, so 22.5s.
Question of workloads.. what is the actual preempt timeout compute
is happy with? And I don't mean compute setups with disabled
hangcheck, which you say they want anyway, but if we target
defaults for end users. Do we have some numbers on what they are
likely to run?
Not that I have ever seen. This is all just finger in the air
stuff. I don't recall if we invented the number and the compute
people agreed with it or if they proposed the number to us.
Yeah me neither. And found nothing in my email archives. :(
Thinking about it today I don't see that disabled timeout is a
practical default.
With it, if users have something un-preemptable to run (assuming
prio normal), it would get killed after ~13s (5 * 2.5).
If we go for my scheme it gets killed in ~17.5s (3 * (2.5 + 2.5) +
2.5 (third pulse triggers preempt timeout)).
And if we go for your scheme it gets killed in ~22.5s (4 * 2.5 + 2 *
3 * 2.5).
Erm, that is not an apples to apples comparison. Your 17.5 is for an
engine reset tripped by the pre-emption timeout, but your 22.5s is
for a GT reset tripped by the heartbeat reaching the end and nuking
the universe.
Right, in your scheme I did get it wrong. It would wait for GuC to
reset the engine at the end, rather than hit the fake "hearbeat
stopped" in that case, full reset path.
4 * 2.5 to trigger a max prio pulse, then 3 * 2.5 preempt timeout for
GuC to reset (last hearbeat delay extended so it does not trigger). So
17.5 as well.
Again, apples or oranges? I was using your tP(RCS) == 2.5s assumption in
all the above calculations given that the discussion was about the
heartbeat algorithm, not the choice of pre-emption timeout. In which
case the last heartbeat is max(tP * 2, tH) == 2 * 2.5s.
If you are saying that the first pulse at sufficient priority (third
being normal prio) is what causes the reset because the system is
working as expected and the pre-emption timeout trips the reset. In
that case, you have two periods to get to normal prio plus one
pre-emption timeout to trip the reset. I.e. (tH * 2) + tP.
Your scheme is then tH(actual) = tH(user) + tP, yes?
So pre-emption based reset is after ((tH(user) + tP) * 2) + tP => (3
* tP) + (2 * tH)
And GT based reset is after (tH(user) + tP) * 5 => (5 * tP) + (5 * tH)
My scheme is tH(actual) = tH(user) for first four, then max(tH(user),
tP) for fifth.
So pre-emption based reset is after tH(user) * 2 + tP = > tP + (2 * tH);
And GT based reset is after (tH(user) * 4) + (max(tH(user), tP) * 1)
=> greater of ((4 * tH) + tP) or (5 * tH)
Either way your scheme is longer. With tH(user) = 2.5s, tP(RCS) =
7.5s, we get 27.5s for engine and 50s for GT versus my 12.5s for
engine and 17.5s for GT. With tP(RCS) = 2.5s, yours is 12.5s for
engine and 25s for GT versus my 7.5s for engine and 12.5s for GT.
Plus, not sure why your calculations above are using 2.5 for tP? Are
you still arguing that 7.5s is too long? That is a separate issue and
not related to the heartbeat algorithms. tP must be long enough to
allow 'out of box OpenCL workloads to complete'. That doesn't just
mean not being killed by the heartbeat, it also means not being
killed by running two of them concurrently (or one plus desktop
OpenGL rendering) and not having it killed by basic time slicing
between the two contexts. The heartbeat is not involved in that
process. That is purely the pre-emption timeout. And that is the
fundamental reason why tP needs to be much larger on RCS/CCS.
I was assuming 2.5s tP is enough and basing all calculation on that.
Heartbeat or timeslicing regardless. I thought we established neither
of us knows how long is enough.
Are you now saying 2.5s is definitely not enough? How is that usable
for a default out of the box desktop?
Show me your proof that 2.5s is enough.
7.5s is what we have been using internally for a very long time. It has
approval from all relevant parties. If you wish to pick a new random
number then please provide data to back it up along with buy in from all
UMD teams and project management.
If I did not confuse any calculation this time round, then the
differences for default case for normal priority sound pretty
immaterial to me.
What if we gave them a default of 2.5s? That would be 4 * (2.5s +
2.5s) = 20s worst case until reset, comparable to your proposal.
Are there realistic workloads which are non-preemptable for 2.5s?
I am having hard time imagining someone would run them on a
general purpose desktop since it would mean frozen and unusable UI
anyway.
Advantage still being in my mind that there would be no fudging of
timeouts during driver load and heartbeat periods depending on
priority. To me it feels more plausible to account for preempt
timeout in heartbeat pulses that to calculate preempt timeout to
be longer than hearbeat pulses, just to avoid races between the two.
Except that when the user asks for a heartbeat period of 2.5s you
are actually setting it to 5s. How is that not a major fudge that
is totally disregarding the user's request?
This is indeed the core question. My thinking:
It is not defined in the heartbeat ABI that N pulses should do
anything, just that they are periodic pulses which check the health
of an engine.
If we view user priority as not under our control then we can say
that any heartbeat pulse can trigger preempt timeout and we should
let it do that.
From that it follows that it is justified to account for preempt
timeout in the decision when to schedule heartbeat pulses and that
it is legitimate to do it for all of them.
But it can be optimised to say that it doesn't matter if you bump the
priority of a pulse before waiting for the pre-emption period to
expire. If the pulse was already high enough prio then the
pre-emption has already been triggered and bumping the prio has no
effect. If was too low then waiting for longer has no benefit at all.
All that matters is that you don't hit the end stop and trigger the
GT reset too early.
Yes I agree that it can also be argued what you are saying.
I was trying to weigh pros&cons of both approaches by bringing into
the discussing the question of what are heartbeats. Given they are
loosely/vaguely defined I think we have freedom to tweak things.
And I don't have a problem with extending the last pulse. It is
fundamentally correct to do regardless of the backend. I just raised
the question of whether to extend all heartbeats to account for
preemption (and scheduling delays). (What is the point of bumping
their priority and re-scheduling if we didn't give enough time to the
engine to react? So opposite of the question you raise.)
The point is that it we are giving enough time to react. Raising the
priority of a pre-emption that has already been triggered will have no
effect. So as long as the total time from when the pre-emption is
triggered (prio becomes sufficiently high) to the point when the reset
is decided is longer than the pre-emption timeout then it works. Given
that, it is unnecessary to increase the intermediate periods. It has no
advantage and has the disadvantage of making the total time unreasonably
long.
So again, what is the point of making every period longer? What benefit
does it *actually* give?
What I do have a problem with is deriving the preempt timeout from the
hearbeat period. Hence I am looking if we can instead find a fixed
number which works, and so avoid having bi-directional coupling.
Fine. "tP(RCS) = 7500;" can I merge the patch now?
It also avoids the double reset problem, regardless of the backend
and regardless of how the user configured the timeouts. Without the
need to fudge them neither during driver load or during sysfs store.
User has configured that heartbeat pulses should be sent every N
seconds, yes, but I think we are free to account for inherent
hardware and software latencies in our calculations. Especially
since other than flawed Gen12 RCS, other engines will be much closer
to the configured period.
It is just the same as user asking for preempt timeout N and we say
on driver load "oh no you won't get it". Same for heartbeats, they
said 2.5s, we said 2.5s + broken engine factor...
Why would you not get the pre-emption timeout? Because it is too
large? That is a physical limitation (of the GuC firmware) not an
override because we think we know better. If we can obey the user
then we should do so.
I was simply referring to the override in intel_engine_setup.
Meaning the boost rather than the clamp? The other option would be to
add a CONFIG_DRM_I915_PREEMPT_TIMEOUT_COMPUTE option for specifying
tP(RCS). I can do that as a follow up patch if other maintainers agree
to adding yet more CONFIG options. My understanding was that they are
frowned upon and only to be added when there is no other way.
John.
Regards,
Tvrtko
