On 31/08/2022 15:53, Matthew Auld wrote:
On 31/08/2022 14:34, Christian König wrote:
Am 31.08.22 um 14:50 schrieb Matthew Auld:
On 31/08/2022 13:35, Christian König wrote:
Am 31.08.22 um 14:06 schrieb Matthew Auld:
On 31/08/2022 12:03, Christian König wrote:
Am 31.08.22 um 12:37 schrieb Matthew Auld:
[SNIP]
That hopefully just leaves i915_ttm_shrink(), which is swapping
out shmem ttm_tt and is calling ttm_bo_validate() with empty
placements to force the pipeline-gutting path, which
importantly unpopulates the ttm_tt for us (since
ttm_tt_unpopulate is not exported it seems). But AFAICT it
looks like that will now also nuke the bo->resource, instead of
just leaving it in system memory. My assumption is that when
later calling ttm_bo_validate(), it will just do the
bo_move_null() in i915_ttm_move(), instead of re-populating the
ttm_tt and then potentially copying it back to local-memory?
Well you do ttm_bo_validate() with something like GTT domain,
don't you? This should result in re-populating the tt object,
but I'm not 100% sure if that really works as expected.
AFAIK for domains we either have system memory (which uses ttm_tt
and might be shmem underneath) or local-memory. But perhaps i915
is doing something wrong here, or abusing TTM in some way. I'm
not sure tbh.
Anyway, I think we have two cases here:
- We have some system memory only object. After doing
i915_ttm_shrink(), bo->resource is now NULL. We then call
ttm_bo_validate() at some later point, but here we don't need to
copy anything, but it also looks like ttm_bo_handle_move_mem()
won't populate the ttm_tt or us either, since mem_type ==
TTM_PL_SYSTEM. It looks like i915_ttm_move() was taking care of
this, but now we just call ttm_bo_move_null().
- We have a local-memory only object, which was evicted to shmem,
and then swapped out by the shrinker like above. The bo->resource
is NULL. However this time when calling ttm_bo_validate() we need
to actually do a copy in i915_ttm_move(), as well as re-populate
the ttm_tt. i915_ttm_move() was taking care of this, but now we
just call ttm_bo_move_null().
Perhaps i915 is doing something wrong in the above two cases?
Mhm, as far as I can see that should still work.
See previously you should got a transition from SYSTEM->GTT in
i915_ttm_move() to re-create your backing store. Not you get
NULL->SYSTEM which is handled by ttm_bo_move_null() and then
SYSTEM->GTT.
What is GTT here in TTM world? Also I'm not seeing where there is
this SYSTEM->GTT transition? Maybe I'm blind. Just to be clear,
i915 is only calling ttm_bo_validate() once when acquiring the
pages, and we don't call it again, unless it was evicted (and
potentially swapped out).
Well GTT means TTM_PL_TT.
And calling it only once is perfectly fine, TTM will internally see
that we need two hops to reach TTM_PL_TT and so does the
NULL->SYSTEM transition and then SYSTEM->TT.
Ah interesting, so that's what the multi-hop thing does. But AFAICT
i915 is not using either TTM_PL_TT or -EMULTIHOP.
Mhm, it could be that we then have a problem and the i915 driver only
sees NULL->TT directly. But I really don't know the i915 driver code
good enough to judge that.
Can you take a look at this and test it maybe?
I'll grab a machine and try to see what is going on here.
Well at least the issue with the firmware not loading looks to be fixed now.
So running some eviction + oom tests it looks it now does:
/* eviction kicks in */
i915_ttm_move(bo): LMEM -> PL_SYSTEM
/* shrinker/oom kicks in at some point */
i915_ttm_shrink(bo):
bo->resource = NULL, /* pipeline_gutting */
shmem ttm_tt is unpopulated and pages are correctly swapped out
/* user touches the same object later */
i915_ttm_move(bo): NULL -> LMEM, bo_move_null()
So seems to incorrectly skip swapping it back in and then copy over to
lmem. It just allocates directly in lmem.
And previously the last two steps would have been:
i915_ttm_shrink(bo):
bo->resource = PL_SYSTEM, /* pipeline_gutting */
shmem ttm_tt is unpopulated and pages are correctly swapped out
i915_ttm_move(bo):
PL_SYSTEM -> LMEM,
ttm_tt is repopulated and pages are copied over to lmem
Also what is the difference between TTM_PL_TT and TM_PL_SYSTEM? When
should you use one over the other?
TTM_PL_SYSTEM means the device is not accessing the buffer and TTM has
the control over the backing store and can swapout/swapin as it wants it.
TTM_PL_TT means that the device is accessing the data (TT stands for
translation table) and so TTM can't swap the backing store in/out.
TTM_PL_VRAM well that one is obvious.
Thanks for the explanation. So it looks like i915 is using TTM_PL_SYSTEM
even for device access it seems.
Thanks,
Christian.
As far as I can see that should work like it did before.
Christian.
If you just validated to SYSTEM memory before I think the tt
object wouldn't have been populated either.
Regards,
Christian.
Thanks,
Christian.
I've been considering to replacing the ttm_bo_type with a
bunch of behavior flags for a bo. I'm hoping that this will
clean things up a bit.
Regards,
Christian.
caching = i915_ttm_select_tt_caching(obj);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
index 9a7e50534b84bb..c420d1ab605b6f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
@@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ int i915_ttm_move(struct
ttm_buffer_object *bo, bool evict,
bool clear;
int ret;
- if (GEM_WARN_ON(!obj)) {
+ if (GEM_WARN_ON(!obj) || !bo->resource) {
ttm_bo_move_null(bo, dst_mem);
return 0;
}
