Am 28.01.21 um 16:39 schrieb Felix Kuehling:
Am 2021-01-28 um 2:39 a.m. schrieb Christian König:
Am 27.01.21 um 23:00 schrieb Felix Kuehling:
Am 2021-01-27 um 7:16 a.m. schrieb Christian König:
Am 27.01.21 um 13:11 schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
Op 27-01-2021 om 01:22 schreef Felix Kuehling:
Am 2021-01-21 um 2:40 p.m. schrieb Daniel Vetter:
Recently there was a fairly long thread about recoreable hardware
page
faults, how they can deadlock, and what to do about that.
While the discussion is still fresh I figured good time to try and
document the conclusions a bit.
References:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Fdri-devel%2F20210107030127.20393-1-Felix.Kuehling%40amd.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cfelix.kuehling%40amd.com%7C4e4884be55d74c4dda1408d8c35fd0ab%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637474163592260552%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=y2VzC4vbfMi0ctyerAHfqODZ6tthz1FUDwpMCp0PIrQ%3D&reserved=0
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linaro-mm-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
I'll be away next week, but figured I'll type this up quickly for
some
comments and to check whether I got this all roughly right.
Critique very much wanted on this, so that we can make sure hw which
can't preempt (with pagefaults pending) like gfx10 has a clear
path to
support page faults in upstream. So anything I missed, got wrong or
like that would be good.
-Daniel
---
Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst | 66
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst
b/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst
index a2133d69872c..e924c1e4f7a3 100644
--- a/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst
+++ b/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst
@@ -257,3 +257,69 @@ fences in the kernel. This means:
userspace is allowed to use userspace fencing or long running
compute
workloads. This also means no implicit fencing for shared
buffers in these
cases.
+
+Recoverable Hardware Page Faults Implications
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Modern hardware supports recoverable page faults, which has a
lot of
+implications for DMA fences.
+
+First, a pending page fault obviously holds up the work that's
running on the
+accelerator and a memory allocation is usually required to resolve
the fault.
+But memory allocations are not allowed to gate completion of DMA
fences, which
+means any workload using recoverable page faults cannot use DMA
fences for
+synchronization. Synchronization fences controlled by userspace
must be used
+instead.
+
+On GPUs this poses a problem, because current desktop compositor
protocols on
+Linus rely on DMA fences, which means without an entirely new
userspace stack
+built on top of userspace fences, they cannot benefit from
recoverable page
+faults. The exception is when page faults are only used as
migration hints and
+never to on-demand fill a memory request. For now this means
recoverable page
+faults on GPUs are limited to pure compute workloads.
+
+Furthermore GPUs usually have shared resources between the 3D
rendering and
+compute side, like compute units or command submission engines. If
both a 3D
+job with a DMA fence and a compute workload using recoverable page
faults are
+pending they could deadlock:
+
+- The 3D workload might need to wait for the compute job to finish
and release
+ hardware resources first.
+
+- The compute workload might be stuck in a page fault, because the
memory
+ allocation is waiting for the DMA fence of the 3D workload to
complete.
+
+There are a few ways to prevent this problem:
+
+- Compute workloads can always be preempted, even when a page
fault is pending
+ and not yet repaired. Not all hardware supports this.
+
+- DMA fence workloads and workloads which need page fault handling
have
+ independent hardware resources to guarantee forward progress.
This could be
+ achieved through e.g. through dedicated engines and minimal
compute unit
+ reservations for DMA fence workloads.
+
+- The reservation approach could be further refined by only
reserving the
+ hardware resources for DMA fence workloads when they are
in-flight. This must
+ cover the time from when the DMA fence is visible to other
threads up to
+ moment when fence is completed through dma_fence_signal().
+
+- As a last resort, if the hardware provides no useful reservation
mechanics,
+ all workloads must be flushed from the GPU when switching
between jobs
+ requiring DMA fences or jobs requiring page fault handling: This
means all DMA
+ fences must complete before a compute job with page fault
handling can be
+ inserted into the scheduler queue. And vice versa, before a DMA
fence can be
+ made visible anywhere in the system, all compute workloads must
be preempted
+ to guarantee all pending GPU page faults are flushed.
I thought of another possible workaround:
* Partition the memory. Servicing of page faults will use a
separate
memory pool that can always be allocated from without
waiting for
fences. This includes memory for page tables and memory for
migrating data to. You may steal memory from other processes
that
can page fault, so no fence waiting is necessary. Being able to
steal memory at any time also means there are basically no
out-of-memory situations you need to worry about. Even page
tables
(except the root page directory of each process) can be
stolen in
the worst case.
I think 'overcommit' would be a nice way to describe this. But I'm not
sure how easy this is to implement in practice. You would basically
need
to create your own memory manager for this.
Well you would need a completely separate pool for both device as well
as system memory.
E.g. on boot we say we steal X GB system memory only for HMM.
Why? The GPU driver doesn't need to allocate system memory for HMM.
Migrations to system memory are handled by the kernel's handle_mm_fault
and page allocator and swap logic.
And that one depends on dma_fence completion because you can easily
need to wait for an MMU notifier callback.
I see, the GFX MMU notifier for userpointers in amdgpu currently waits
for fences. For the KFD MMU notifier I am planning to fix this by
causing GPU page faults instead of preempting the queues. Can we limit
userptrs in amdgpu to engines that can page fault. Basically make it
illegal to attach userptr BOs to graphics CS BO lists, so they can only
be used in user mode command submissions, which can page fault. Then the
GFX MMU notifier could invalidate PTEs and would not have to wait for
fences.
It's not only the MMU notifier, the TTM shrinker I'm adding needs to
wait for dma_fences as well.
And apart from that we can't limit userptrs since they are part of the
UAPI and Vulkan/OpenGL.
As Maarten wrote when you want to go down this route you need a
complete separate memory management parallel to the one of the kernel.
Not really. I'm trying to make the GPU memory management more similar to
what the kernel does for system memory.
I understood Maarten's comment as "I'm creating a new memory manager and
not using TTM any more". This is true. The idea is that this portion of
VRAM would be managed more like system memory.
I don't think that will fly. We can have the backing store which TTM
uses for allocation shared with HMM.
But essentially both TTM allocations needs to be able to put pressure on
HMM allocations as well as the other way around.
Regards,
Christian.
Regards,
Felix
Regards,
Christian.
It doesn't depend on any fences, so
it cannot deadlock with any GPU driver-managed memory. The GPU driver
gets involved in the MMU notifier to invalidate device page tables. But
that also doesn't need to wait for any fences.
And if the kernel runs out of pageable memory, you're in trouble anyway.
The OOM killer will step in, nothing new there.
Regards,
Felix
But from a design point of view, definitely a valid solution.
I think the restriction above makes it pretty much unusable.
But this looks good, those solutions are definitely the valid
options we
can choose from.
It's certainly worth noting, yes. And just to make sure that nobody
has the idea to reserve only device memory.
Christian.
~Maarten
_______________________________________________
Linaro-mm-sig mailing list
Linaro-mm-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.linaro.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flinaro-mm-sig&data=04%7C01%7Cfelix.kuehling%40amd.com%7C4e4884be55d74c4dda1408d8c35fd0ab%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637474163592260552%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=gQj51eDK8OUWoQcbYliY639jOPleRjyLY3Q16nj2PL0%3D&reserved=0
