| Message ID | 1354118328-8104-2-git-send-email-j.glisse@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote: > From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> > > This patch add a minimum residency time configurable for each memory > pool (VRAM, GTT, ...). Intention is to avoid having a lot of memory > eviction from VRAM up to a point where the GPU pretty much spend all > it's time moving things in and out. This patch seems odd to me. It seems the net effect is to refuse evictions from VRAM and make buffers go somewhere else, and that makes things faster? Why don't they go there in the first place instead of trying to force them into VRAM, when VRAM is full? /Thomas > > Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c | 3 +++ > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 7 +++++++ > include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h | 1 + > include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h | 1 + > 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c > index 5ebe1b3..88722c4 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c > @@ -129,11 +129,13 @@ static int radeon_init_mem_type(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev, uint32_t type, > switch (type) { > case TTM_PL_SYSTEM: > /* System memory */ > + man->minimum_residency_time_ms = 0; > man->flags = TTM_MEMTYPE_FLAG_MAPPABLE; > man->available_caching = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING; > man->default_caching = TTM_PL_FLAG_CACHED; > break; > case TTM_PL_TT: > + man->minimum_residency_time_ms = 0; > man->func = &ttm_bo_manager_func; > man->gpu_offset = rdev->mc.gtt_start; > man->available_caching = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING; > @@ -156,6 +158,7 @@ static int radeon_init_mem_type(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev, uint32_t type, > break; > case TTM_PL_VRAM: > /* "On-card" video ram */ > + man->minimum_residency_time_ms = 500; > man->func = &ttm_bo_manager_func; > man->gpu_offset = rdev->mc.vram_start; > man->flags = TTM_MEMTYPE_FLAG_FIXED | > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c > index 39dcc58..40476121 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c > @@ -452,6 +452,7 @@ moved: > bo->cur_placement = bo->mem.placement; > } else > bo->offset = 0; > + bo->jiffies = jiffies; > > return 0; > > @@ -810,6 +811,12 @@ retry: > } > > bo = list_first_entry(&man->lru, struct ttm_buffer_object, lru); > + > + if (time_after(jiffies, bo->jiffies) && jiffies_to_msecs(jiffies - bo->jiffies) >= man->minimum_residency_time_ms) { > + spin_unlock(&glob->lru_lock); > + return -EBUSY; > + } > + > kref_get(&bo->list_kref); > > if (!list_empty(&bo->ddestroy)) { > diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h > index e8028ad..9e12313 100644 > --- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h > +++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h > @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ struct ttm_buffer_object { > > unsigned long offset; > uint32_t cur_placement; > + unsigned long jiffies; > > struct sg_table *sg; > }; > diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h > index d803b92..7f60a18e6 100644 > --- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h > +++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h > @@ -280,6 +280,7 @@ struct ttm_mem_type_manager { > struct mutex io_reserve_mutex; > bool use_io_reserve_lru; > bool io_reserve_fastpath; > + unsigned long minimum_residency_time_ms; > > /* > * Protected by @io_reserve_mutex:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: > On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote: >> >> From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> >> >> This patch add a minimum residency time configurable for each memory >> pool (VRAM, GTT, ...). Intention is to avoid having a lot of memory >> eviction from VRAM up to a point where the GPU pretty much spend all >> it's time moving things in and out. > > > This patch seems odd to me. > > It seems the net effect is to refuse evictions from VRAM and make buffers go > somewhere else, and that makes things faster? > > Why don't they go there in the first place instead of trying to force them > into VRAM, > when VRAM is full? > > /Thomas It's mostly a side effect of cs and validating with each cs, if boA is in cs1 and not in cs2 and boB is in cs1 but not in cs2 than boA could be evicted by cs2 and boB moved in, if next cs ie cs3 is like cs1 then boA move back again and boB is evicted, then you get cs4 which reference boB but not boA, boA get evicted and boB move in ... So ttm just spend its time doing eviction but he doing so because it's ask by the driver to do so. Note that what is costly there is not the bo move in itself but the page allocation. I propose this patch to put a boundary on bo eviction frequency, i thought it might help other driver, if you set the residency time to 0 you get the current behavior, if you don't you enforce a minimum residency time which helps driver like radeon. Of course a proper fix to the bo eviction for radeon has to be in radeon code and is mostly an overhaul of how we validate bo. But i still believe that this patch has value in itself by allowing driver to put a boundary on buffer movement frequency. Cheers, Jerome
On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 18:24 -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: > > On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >> From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> > >> > >> This patch add a minimum residency time configurable for each memory > >> pool (VRAM, GTT, ...). Intention is to avoid having a lot of memory > >> eviction from VRAM up to a point where the GPU pretty much spend all > >> it's time moving things in and out. > > > > > > This patch seems odd to me. > > > > It seems the net effect is to refuse evictions from VRAM and make buffers go > > somewhere else, and that makes things faster? > > > > Why don't they go there in the first place instead of trying to force them > > into VRAM, > > when VRAM is full? > > > > /Thomas > > It's mostly a side effect of cs and validating with each cs, if boA is > in cs1 and not in cs2 and boB is in cs1 but not in cs2 than boA could > be evicted by cs2 and boB moved in, if next cs ie cs3 is like cs1 then > boA move back again and boB is evicted, then you get cs4 which > reference boB but not boA, boA get evicted and boB move in ... So ttm > just spend its time doing eviction but he doing so because it's ask by > the driver to do so. Note that what is costly there is not the bo move > in itself but the page allocation. > > I propose this patch to put a boundary on bo eviction frequency, i > thought it might help other driver, if you set the residency time to 0 > you get the current behavior, if you don't you enforce a minimum > residency time which helps driver like radeon. Of course a proper fix > to the bo eviction for radeon has to be in radeon code and is mostly > an overhaul of how we validate bo. > > But i still believe that this patch has value in itself by allowing > driver to put a boundary on buffer movement frequency. > > Cheers, > Jerome So, a variation on John Carmack's recommendation from 2000 to use MRU, not LRU, to avoid texture trashing. Mar 07, 2000 - Virtualized video card local memory is The Right Thing. http://floodyberry.com/carmack/johnc_plan_2000.html In fact, this was last discussed in 2005 with a patch for a 1 second stale texture eviction and I (still) wondered why a method it was never implemented since it was an clear problem. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.dri.devel/17274/focus=17305
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Alan Swanson <swanson@ukfsn.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 18:24 -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: >> > On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> >> >> >> >> This patch add a minimum residency time configurable for each memory >> >> pool (VRAM, GTT, ...). Intention is to avoid having a lot of memory >> >> eviction from VRAM up to a point where the GPU pretty much spend all >> >> it's time moving things in and out. >> > >> > >> > This patch seems odd to me. >> > >> > It seems the net effect is to refuse evictions from VRAM and make buffers go >> > somewhere else, and that makes things faster? >> > >> > Why don't they go there in the first place instead of trying to force them >> > into VRAM, >> > when VRAM is full? >> > >> > /Thomas >> >> It's mostly a side effect of cs and validating with each cs, if boA is >> in cs1 and not in cs2 and boB is in cs1 but not in cs2 than boA could >> be evicted by cs2 and boB moved in, if next cs ie cs3 is like cs1 then >> boA move back again and boB is evicted, then you get cs4 which >> reference boB but not boA, boA get evicted and boB move in ... So ttm >> just spend its time doing eviction but he doing so because it's ask by >> the driver to do so. Note that what is costly there is not the bo move >> in itself but the page allocation. >> >> I propose this patch to put a boundary on bo eviction frequency, i >> thought it might help other driver, if you set the residency time to 0 >> you get the current behavior, if you don't you enforce a minimum >> residency time which helps driver like radeon. Of course a proper fix >> to the bo eviction for radeon has to be in radeon code and is mostly >> an overhaul of how we validate bo. >> >> But i still believe that this patch has value in itself by allowing >> driver to put a boundary on buffer movement frequency. >> >> Cheers, >> Jerome > > So, a variation on John Carmack's recommendation from 2000 to use MRU, > not LRU, to avoid texture trashing. > > Mar 07, 2000 - Virtualized video card local memory is The Right Thing. > http://floodyberry.com/carmack/johnc_plan_2000.html > > In fact, this was last discussed in 2005 with a patch for a 1 second > stale texture eviction and I (still) wondered why a method it was never > implemented since it was an clear problem. > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.dri.devel/17274/focus=17305 > > -- > Alan. Yes such heuristic might be a good idea, i am working on a prototype which mostly require a bit of infrastructure. Cheers, Jerome
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Alan Swanson <swanson@ukfsn.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 18:24 -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: >> > On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> >> >> >> >> This patch add a minimum residency time configurable for each memory >> >> pool (VRAM, GTT, ...). Intention is to avoid having a lot of memory >> >> eviction from VRAM up to a point where the GPU pretty much spend all >> >> it's time moving things in and out. >> > >> > >> > This patch seems odd to me. >> > >> > It seems the net effect is to refuse evictions from VRAM and make buffers go >> > somewhere else, and that makes things faster? >> > >> > Why don't they go there in the first place instead of trying to force them >> > into VRAM, >> > when VRAM is full? >> > >> > /Thomas >> >> It's mostly a side effect of cs and validating with each cs, if boA is >> in cs1 and not in cs2 and boB is in cs1 but not in cs2 than boA could >> be evicted by cs2 and boB moved in, if next cs ie cs3 is like cs1 then >> boA move back again and boB is evicted, then you get cs4 which >> reference boB but not boA, boA get evicted and boB move in ... So ttm >> just spend its time doing eviction but he doing so because it's ask by >> the driver to do so. Note that what is costly there is not the bo move >> in itself but the page allocation. >> >> I propose this patch to put a boundary on bo eviction frequency, i >> thought it might help other driver, if you set the residency time to 0 >> you get the current behavior, if you don't you enforce a minimum >> residency time which helps driver like radeon. Of course a proper fix >> to the bo eviction for radeon has to be in radeon code and is mostly >> an overhaul of how we validate bo. >> >> But i still believe that this patch has value in itself by allowing >> driver to put a boundary on buffer movement frequency. >> >> Cheers, >> Jerome > > So, a variation on John Carmack's recommendation from 2000 to use MRU, > not LRU, to avoid texture trashing. > > Mar 07, 2000 - Virtualized video card local memory is The Right Thing. > http://floodyberry.com/carmack/johnc_plan_2000.html > > In fact, this was last discussed in 2005 with a patch for a 1 second > stale texture eviction and I (still) wondered why a method it was never > implemented since it was an clear problem. BTW we can send end-of-frame markers to the kernel, which could be used to implement Carmack's algorithm. Marek
On 11/29/2012 03:15 AM, Marek Olšák wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Alan Swanson <swanson@ukfsn.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 18:24 -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: >>>> On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> >>>>> >>>>> This patch add a minimum residency time configurable for each memory >>>>> pool (VRAM, GTT, ...). Intention is to avoid having a lot of memory >>>>> eviction from VRAM up to a point where the GPU pretty much spend all >>>>> it's time moving things in and out. >>>> >>>> This patch seems odd to me. >>>> >>>> It seems the net effect is to refuse evictions from VRAM and make buffers go >>>> somewhere else, and that makes things faster? >>>> >>>> Why don't they go there in the first place instead of trying to force them >>>> into VRAM, >>>> when VRAM is full? >>>> >>>> /Thomas >>> It's mostly a side effect of cs and validating with each cs, if boA is >>> in cs1 and not in cs2 and boB is in cs1 but not in cs2 than boA could >>> be evicted by cs2 and boB moved in, if next cs ie cs3 is like cs1 then >>> boA move back again and boB is evicted, then you get cs4 which >>> reference boB but not boA, boA get evicted and boB move in ... So ttm >>> just spend its time doing eviction but he doing so because it's ask by >>> the driver to do so. Note that what is costly there is not the bo move >>> in itself but the page allocation. >>> >>> I propose this patch to put a boundary on bo eviction frequency, i >>> thought it might help other driver, if you set the residency time to 0 >>> you get the current behavior, if you don't you enforce a minimum >>> residency time which helps driver like radeon. Of course a proper fix >>> to the bo eviction for radeon has to be in radeon code and is mostly >>> an overhaul of how we validate bo. >>> >>> But i still believe that this patch has value in itself by allowing >>> driver to put a boundary on buffer movement frequency. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jerome >> So, a variation on John Carmack's recommendation from 2000 to use MRU, >> not LRU, to avoid texture trashing. >> >> Mar 07, 2000 - Virtualized video card local memory is The Right Thing. >> http://floodyberry.com/carmack/johnc_plan_2000.html >> >> In fact, this was last discussed in 2005 with a patch for a 1 second >> stale texture eviction and I (still) wondered why a method it was never >> implemented since it was an clear problem. > BTW we can send end-of-frame markers to the kernel, which could be > used to implement Carmack's algorithm. > > Marek It seems to me like Carmack's algorithm is quite specific to the case where only a single GL client is running? It also seems like it's designed around the fact that when eviction takes place, all buffer objects will be idle. With a reasonably filled graphics fifo / ring, blindly using MRU will cause the GPU to run synchronized. /Thomas > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 11/29/2012 12:24 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: >> On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote: >>> From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> >>> >>> This patch add a minimum residency time configurable for each memory >>> pool (VRAM, GTT, ...). Intention is to avoid having a lot of memory >>> eviction from VRAM up to a point where the GPU pretty much spend all >>> it's time moving things in and out. >> >> This patch seems odd to me. >> >> It seems the net effect is to refuse evictions from VRAM and make buffers go >> somewhere else, and that makes things faster? >> >> Why don't they go there in the first place instead of trying to force them >> into VRAM, >> when VRAM is full? >> >> /Thomas > It's mostly a side effect of cs and validating with each cs, if boA is > in cs1 and not in cs2 and boB is in cs1 but not in cs2 than boA could > be evicted by cs2 and boB moved in, if next cs ie cs3 is like cs1 then > boA move back again and boB is evicted, then you get cs4 which > reference boB but not boA, boA get evicted and boB move in ... So ttm > just spend its time doing eviction but he doing so because it's ask by > the driver to do so. Note that what is costly there is not the bo move > in itself but the page allocation. Yes, this is the cause of the trashing, but that was not what I asked. What your patch is doing is looking at the last recently used bo, to check if it has been resident for at least 500ms. Otherwise it refuses eviction for *all* buffers of that memory type. This means new buffers can't fit in VRAM, they need to go somewhere else. Perhaps TT? So my question was. If VRAM is full, instead of starting to evict, why not put new buffers in TT, so that placement(GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) = VRAM | TT // Prefer VRAM but allow TT before starting to evict. busy_placement(GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) = TT | VRAM // *If* we need to evict, prefer evicting TT, then evict VRAM) This will more or less mimic carmack's algorithm by using TT as his "MRU scratch space". And as a side note, your patch breaks ttm_bo_force_list_clean() which should be used at GPU memory exhaustion to avoid OOM due to fragmentation and for those drivers that implement VRAM cleanup on VT switch and / or suspend / hibernation. /Thomas
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: > On 11/29/2012 03:15 AM, Marek Olšák wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Alan Swanson <swanson@ukfsn.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 18:24 -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch add a minimum residency time configurable for each memory >>>>>> pool (VRAM, GTT, ...). Intention is to avoid having a lot of memory >>>>>> eviction from VRAM up to a point where the GPU pretty much spend all >>>>>> it's time moving things in and out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This patch seems odd to me. >>>>> >>>>> It seems the net effect is to refuse evictions from VRAM and make >>>>> buffers go >>>>> somewhere else, and that makes things faster? >>>>> >>>>> Why don't they go there in the first place instead of trying to force >>>>> them >>>>> into VRAM, >>>>> when VRAM is full? >>>>> >>>>> /Thomas >>>> >>>> It's mostly a side effect of cs and validating with each cs, if boA is >>>> in cs1 and not in cs2 and boB is in cs1 but not in cs2 than boA could >>>> be evicted by cs2 and boB moved in, if next cs ie cs3 is like cs1 then >>>> boA move back again and boB is evicted, then you get cs4 which >>>> reference boB but not boA, boA get evicted and boB move in ... So ttm >>>> just spend its time doing eviction but he doing so because it's ask by >>>> the driver to do so. Note that what is costly there is not the bo move >>>> in itself but the page allocation. >>>> >>>> I propose this patch to put a boundary on bo eviction frequency, i >>>> thought it might help other driver, if you set the residency time to 0 >>>> you get the current behavior, if you don't you enforce a minimum >>>> residency time which helps driver like radeon. Of course a proper fix >>>> to the bo eviction for radeon has to be in radeon code and is mostly >>>> an overhaul of how we validate bo. >>>> >>>> But i still believe that this patch has value in itself by allowing >>>> driver to put a boundary on buffer movement frequency. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Jerome >>> >>> So, a variation on John Carmack's recommendation from 2000 to use MRU, >>> not LRU, to avoid texture trashing. >>> >>> Mar 07, 2000 - Virtualized video card local memory is The Right Thing. >>> http://floodyberry.com/carmack/johnc_plan_2000.html >>> >>> In fact, this was last discussed in 2005 with a patch for a 1 second >>> stale texture eviction and I (still) wondered why a method it was never >>> implemented since it was an clear problem. >> >> BTW we can send end-of-frame markers to the kernel, which could be >> used to implement Carmack's algorithm. >> >> Marek > > > It seems to me like Carmack's algorithm is quite specific to the case where > only a single GL client is running? In theory, we could send context IDs to the kernel as well and modify the conditional to "If the LRU texture was not needed in the previous frame of any context". > > It also seems like it's designed around the fact that when eviction takes > place, all buffer objects will be idle. With a > reasonably filled graphics fifo / ring, blindly using MRU will cause the GPU > to run synchronized. I don't see why you would need to synchronize. If the GPU takes care of moving buffers in and out of VRAM and there's only one ring buffer ==> no synchronization is required. Marek
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:41:34AM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > On 11/29/2012 12:24 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: > >>On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote: > >>>From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> > >>> > >>>This patch add a minimum residency time configurable for each memory > >>>pool (VRAM, GTT, ...). Intention is to avoid having a lot of memory > >>>eviction from VRAM up to a point where the GPU pretty much spend all > >>>it's time moving things in and out. > >> > >>This patch seems odd to me. > >> > >>It seems the net effect is to refuse evictions from VRAM and make buffers go > >>somewhere else, and that makes things faster? > >> > >>Why don't they go there in the first place instead of trying to force them > >>into VRAM, > >>when VRAM is full? > >> > >>/Thomas > >It's mostly a side effect of cs and validating with each cs, if boA is > >in cs1 and not in cs2 and boB is in cs1 but not in cs2 than boA could > >be evicted by cs2 and boB moved in, if next cs ie cs3 is like cs1 then > >boA move back again and boB is evicted, then you get cs4 which > >reference boB but not boA, boA get evicted and boB move in ... So ttm > >just spend its time doing eviction but he doing so because it's ask by > >the driver to do so. Note that what is costly there is not the bo move > >in itself but the page allocation. > > Yes, this is the cause of the trashing, but that was not what I asked. > > What your patch is doing is looking at the last recently used bo, to > check if it has been > resident for at least 500ms. Otherwise it refuses eviction for *all* > buffers of that memory type. > > This means new buffers can't fit in VRAM, they need to go somewhere > else. Perhaps TT? > > So my question was. If VRAM is full, instead of starting to evict, > why not put new buffers in TT, so that > > placement(GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) = VRAM | TT // Prefer VRAM but allow TT > before starting to evict. > busy_placement(GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) = TT | VRAM // *If* we need to > evict, prefer evicting TT, then evict VRAM) > > This will more or less mimic carmack's algorithm by using TT as his > "MRU scratch space". Well not exactly, the ping-pong btw vram and tt is still very likely to happen. If we always | GTT placement then some buffer that would need to be in vram never goes there because some older buffer that haven't been use in ages is present in vram. Only way to force those buffer to be evicted is to ask for vram only (case i used i never filled up vram + gtt so there was always room in either one). So this way you still allow eviction of old vram buffer, and avoid too much ping pong with heavily used buffer being moved in and out. Anyway i did this as a quick hack to thinking it might interest other. Proper solution as i said lies in not validating, to different placement, buffer at each cs and use some worker thread to evict things from vram and do things like compaction to minimize fragmentation. > And as a side note, your patch breaks > ttm_bo_force_list_clean() > which should be used at GPU memory exhaustion to avoid OOM due to > fragmentation and for those drivers that > implement VRAM cleanup on VT switch and / or suspend / hibernation. > > /Thomas Yeah, i did not paid much attention to the whole cleanup phase, was only interested in dirty prototype. Cheers, Jerome
On 11/29/2012 01:52 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: >> On 11/29/2012 03:15 AM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Alan Swanson <swanson@ukfsn.org> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 18:24 -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This patch add a minimum residency time configurable for each memory >>>>>>> pool (VRAM, GTT, ...). Intention is to avoid having a lot of memory >>>>>>> eviction from VRAM up to a point where the GPU pretty much spend all >>>>>>> it's time moving things in and out. >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch seems odd to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems the net effect is to refuse evictions from VRAM and make >>>>>> buffers go >>>>>> somewhere else, and that makes things faster? >>>>>> >>>>>> Why don't they go there in the first place instead of trying to force >>>>>> them >>>>>> into VRAM, >>>>>> when VRAM is full? >>>>>> >>>>>> /Thomas >>>>> It's mostly a side effect of cs and validating with each cs, if boA is >>>>> in cs1 and not in cs2 and boB is in cs1 but not in cs2 than boA could >>>>> be evicted by cs2 and boB moved in, if next cs ie cs3 is like cs1 then >>>>> boA move back again and boB is evicted, then you get cs4 which >>>>> reference boB but not boA, boA get evicted and boB move in ... So ttm >>>>> just spend its time doing eviction but he doing so because it's ask by >>>>> the driver to do so. Note that what is costly there is not the bo move >>>>> in itself but the page allocation. >>>>> >>>>> I propose this patch to put a boundary on bo eviction frequency, i >>>>> thought it might help other driver, if you set the residency time to 0 >>>>> you get the current behavior, if you don't you enforce a minimum >>>>> residency time which helps driver like radeon. Of course a proper fix >>>>> to the bo eviction for radeon has to be in radeon code and is mostly >>>>> an overhaul of how we validate bo. >>>>> >>>>> But i still believe that this patch has value in itself by allowing >>>>> driver to put a boundary on buffer movement frequency. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Jerome >>>> So, a variation on John Carmack's recommendation from 2000 to use MRU, >>>> not LRU, to avoid texture trashing. >>>> >>>> Mar 07, 2000 - Virtualized video card local memory is The Right Thing. >>>> http://floodyberry.com/carmack/johnc_plan_2000.html >>>> >>>> In fact, this was last discussed in 2005 with a patch for a 1 second >>>> stale texture eviction and I (still) wondered why a method it was never >>>> implemented since it was an clear problem. >>> BTW we can send end-of-frame markers to the kernel, which could be >>> used to implement Carmack's algorithm. >>> >>> Marek >> >> It seems to me like Carmack's algorithm is quite specific to the case where >> only a single GL client is running? > In theory, we could send context IDs to the kernel as well and modify > the conditional to "If the LRU texture was not needed in the previous > frame of any context". > > >> It also seems like it's designed around the fact that when eviction takes >> place, all buffer objects will be idle. With a >> reasonably filled graphics fifo / ring, blindly using MRU will cause the GPU >> to run synchronized. > I don't see why you would need to synchronize. If the GPU takes care > of moving buffers in and out of VRAM and there's only one ring buffer > ==> no synchronization is required. The LRU bo has a much higher probability of being idle than the MRU bo, and waiting for it to become idle will in principle synchronize the GPU and unnecessarily drain the ring. /Thomas > Marek
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: > On 11/29/2012 01:52 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 11/29/2012 03:15 AM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Alan Swanson <swanson@ukfsn.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 18:24 -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Hellstrom >>>>>> <thomas@shipmail.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This patch add a minimum residency time configurable for each memory >>>>>>>> pool (VRAM, GTT, ...). Intention is to avoid having a lot of memory >>>>>>>> eviction from VRAM up to a point where the GPU pretty much spend all >>>>>>>> it's time moving things in and out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This patch seems odd to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems the net effect is to refuse evictions from VRAM and make >>>>>>> buffers go >>>>>>> somewhere else, and that makes things faster? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why don't they go there in the first place instead of trying to force >>>>>>> them >>>>>>> into VRAM, >>>>>>> when VRAM is full? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Thomas >>>>>> >>>>>> It's mostly a side effect of cs and validating with each cs, if boA is >>>>>> in cs1 and not in cs2 and boB is in cs1 but not in cs2 than boA could >>>>>> be evicted by cs2 and boB moved in, if next cs ie cs3 is like cs1 then >>>>>> boA move back again and boB is evicted, then you get cs4 which >>>>>> reference boB but not boA, boA get evicted and boB move in ... So ttm >>>>>> just spend its time doing eviction but he doing so because it's ask by >>>>>> the driver to do so. Note that what is costly there is not the bo move >>>>>> in itself but the page allocation. >>>>>> >>>>>> I propose this patch to put a boundary on bo eviction frequency, i >>>>>> thought it might help other driver, if you set the residency time to 0 >>>>>> you get the current behavior, if you don't you enforce a minimum >>>>>> residency time which helps driver like radeon. Of course a proper fix >>>>>> to the bo eviction for radeon has to be in radeon code and is mostly >>>>>> an overhaul of how we validate bo. >>>>>> >>>>>> But i still believe that this patch has value in itself by allowing >>>>>> driver to put a boundary on buffer movement frequency. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Jerome >>>>> >>>>> So, a variation on John Carmack's recommendation from 2000 to use MRU, >>>>> not LRU, to avoid texture trashing. >>>>> >>>>> Mar 07, 2000 - Virtualized video card local memory is The Right >>>>> Thing. >>>>> http://floodyberry.com/carmack/johnc_plan_2000.html >>>>> >>>>> In fact, this was last discussed in 2005 with a patch for a 1 second >>>>> stale texture eviction and I (still) wondered why a method it was never >>>>> implemented since it was an clear problem. >>>> >>>> BTW we can send end-of-frame markers to the kernel, which could be >>>> used to implement Carmack's algorithm. >>>> >>>> Marek >>> >>> >>> It seems to me like Carmack's algorithm is quite specific to the case >>> where >>> only a single GL client is running? >> >> In theory, we could send context IDs to the kernel as well and modify >> the conditional to "If the LRU texture was not needed in the previous >> frame of any context". >> >> >>> It also seems like it's designed around the fact that when eviction takes >>> place, all buffer objects will be idle. With a >>> reasonably filled graphics fifo / ring, blindly using MRU will cause the >>> GPU >>> to run synchronized. >> >> I don't see why you would need to synchronize. If the GPU takes care >> of moving buffers in and out of VRAM and there's only one ring buffer >> ==> no synchronization is required. > > The LRU bo has a much higher probability of being idle than the MRU bo, and > waiting for it to become idle will in > principle synchronize the GPU and unnecessarily drain the ring. What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute commands in order. Marek
On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: >> On 11/29/2012 01:52 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> >>> wrote: >>>> On 11/29/2012 03:15 AM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Alan Swanson <swanson@ukfsn.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 18:24 -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Thomas Hellstrom >>>>>>> <thomas@shipmail.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/28/2012 04:58 PM, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This patch add a minimum residency time configurable for each memory >>>>>>>>> pool (VRAM, GTT, ...). Intention is to avoid having a lot of memory >>>>>>>>> eviction from VRAM up to a point where the GPU pretty much spend all >>>>>>>>> it's time moving things in and out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This patch seems odd to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems the net effect is to refuse evictions from VRAM and make >>>>>>>> buffers go >>>>>>>> somewhere else, and that makes things faster? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why don't they go there in the first place instead of trying to force >>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>> into VRAM, >>>>>>>> when VRAM is full? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Thomas >>>>>>> It's mostly a side effect of cs and validating with each cs, if boA is >>>>>>> in cs1 and not in cs2 and boB is in cs1 but not in cs2 than boA could >>>>>>> be evicted by cs2 and boB moved in, if next cs ie cs3 is like cs1 then >>>>>>> boA move back again and boB is evicted, then you get cs4 which >>>>>>> reference boB but not boA, boA get evicted and boB move in ... So ttm >>>>>>> just spend its time doing eviction but he doing so because it's ask by >>>>>>> the driver to do so. Note that what is costly there is not the bo move >>>>>>> in itself but the page allocation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I propose this patch to put a boundary on bo eviction frequency, i >>>>>>> thought it might help other driver, if you set the residency time to 0 >>>>>>> you get the current behavior, if you don't you enforce a minimum >>>>>>> residency time which helps driver like radeon. Of course a proper fix >>>>>>> to the bo eviction for radeon has to be in radeon code and is mostly >>>>>>> an overhaul of how we validate bo. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But i still believe that this patch has value in itself by allowing >>>>>>> driver to put a boundary on buffer movement frequency. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Jerome >>>>>> So, a variation on John Carmack's recommendation from 2000 to use MRU, >>>>>> not LRU, to avoid texture trashing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mar 07, 2000 - Virtualized video card local memory is The Right >>>>>> Thing. >>>>>> http://floodyberry.com/carmack/johnc_plan_2000.html >>>>>> >>>>>> In fact, this was last discussed in 2005 with a patch for a 1 second >>>>>> stale texture eviction and I (still) wondered why a method it was never >>>>>> implemented since it was an clear problem. >>>>> BTW we can send end-of-frame markers to the kernel, which could be >>>>> used to implement Carmack's algorithm. >>>>> >>>>> Marek >>>> >>>> It seems to me like Carmack's algorithm is quite specific to the case >>>> where >>>> only a single GL client is running? >>> In theory, we could send context IDs to the kernel as well and modify >>> the conditional to "If the LRU texture was not needed in the previous >>> frame of any context". >>> >>> >>>> It also seems like it's designed around the fact that when eviction takes >>>> place, all buffer objects will be idle. With a >>>> reasonably filled graphics fifo / ring, blindly using MRU will cause the >>>> GPU >>>> to run synchronized. >>> I don't see why you would need to synchronize. If the GPU takes care >>> of moving buffers in and out of VRAM and there's only one ring buffer >>> ==> no synchronization is required. >> The LRU bo has a much higher probability of being idle than the MRU bo, and >> waiting for it to become idle will in >> principle synchronize the GPU and unnecessarily drain the ring. > What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be > needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of > evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the > CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? > > Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for > the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be > mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It > would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old > buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute > commands in order. Yes, you're right. Sorry about that. /Thomas
On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: > > What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be > needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of > evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the > CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? > > Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for > the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be > mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It > would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old > buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute > commands in order. > > Marek Actually asynchronous eviction / deletion is something I have been prototyping for a while but never gotten around to implement in TTM: There are a few minor caveats: With buffer deletion, what you say is true for fixed memory, but not for TT memory where pages are reclaimed by the system after buffer destruction. That means that we don't have to wait for idle to free GPU space, but we need to wait before pages are handed back to the system. Swapout needs to access the contents of evicted buffers, but synchronizing doesn't need to happen until just before swapout. Multi-ring - CPU support: If another ring / engine or the CPU is about to move in buffer contents to VRAM or a GPU aperture that was previously evicted by another ring, it needs to sync with that eviction, but doesn't know what buffer or even which buffers occupied the space previously. Trivially one can attach a sync object to the memory type manager that represents the last eviction from that memory type, and *any* engine (CPU or GPU) that moves buffer contents in needs to order that movement with respect to that fence. As you say, with a single ring and no CPU fallbacks, that ordering is a no-op, but any common (non-driver based) implementation needs to support this. A single fence attached to the memory type manager is the simplest solution, but a solution with a fence for each free region in the free list is also possible. Then TTM needs a driver callback to be able order fences w r t echother. /Thomas
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: > On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >> >> >> What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be >> needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of >> evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the >> CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? >> >> Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for >> the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be >> mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It >> would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old >> buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute >> commands in order. >> >> Marek > > > Actually asynchronous eviction / deletion is something I have been > prototyping for a while but never gotten around to implement in TTM: > > There are a few minor caveats: > > With buffer deletion, what you say is true for fixed memory, but not for TT > memory where pages are reclaimed by the system after buffer destruction. > That means that we don't have to wait for idle to free GPU space, but we > need to wait before pages are handed back to the system. > > Swapout needs to access the contents of evicted buffers, but synchronizing > doesn't need to happen until just before swapout. > > Multi-ring - CPU support: If another ring / engine or the CPU is about to > move in buffer contents to VRAM or a GPU aperture that was previously > evicted by another ring, it needs to sync with that eviction, but doesn't > know what buffer or even which buffers occupied the space previously. > Trivially one can attach a sync object to the memory type manager that > represents the last eviction from that memory type, and *any* engine (CPU or > GPU) that moves buffer contents in needs to order that movement with respect > to that fence. As you say, with a single ring and no CPU fallbacks, that > ordering is a no-op, but any common (non-driver based) implementation needs > to support this. > > A single fence attached to the memory type manager is the simplest solution, > but a solution with a fence for each free region in the free list is also > possible. Then TTM needs a driver callback to be able order fences w r t > echother. > > /Thomas > Radeon already handle multi-ring and ttm interaction with what we call semaphore. Semaphore are created to synchronize with fence accross different ring. I think the easiest solution is to just remove the bo wait in ttm and let driver handle this. Cheers, Jerome
On 11/30/2012 05:30 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: >> On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>> >>> What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be >>> needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of >>> evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the >>> CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? >>> >>> Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for >>> the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be >>> mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It >>> would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old >>> buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute >>> commands in order. >>> >>> Marek >> >> Actually asynchronous eviction / deletion is something I have been >> prototyping for a while but never gotten around to implement in TTM: >> >> There are a few minor caveats: >> >> With buffer deletion, what you say is true for fixed memory, but not for TT >> memory where pages are reclaimed by the system after buffer destruction. >> That means that we don't have to wait for idle to free GPU space, but we >> need to wait before pages are handed back to the system. >> >> Swapout needs to access the contents of evicted buffers, but synchronizing >> doesn't need to happen until just before swapout. >> >> Multi-ring - CPU support: If another ring / engine or the CPU is about to >> move in buffer contents to VRAM or a GPU aperture that was previously >> evicted by another ring, it needs to sync with that eviction, but doesn't >> know what buffer or even which buffers occupied the space previously. >> Trivially one can attach a sync object to the memory type manager that >> represents the last eviction from that memory type, and *any* engine (CPU or >> GPU) that moves buffer contents in needs to order that movement with respect >> to that fence. As you say, with a single ring and no CPU fallbacks, that >> ordering is a no-op, but any common (non-driver based) implementation needs >> to support this. >> >> A single fence attached to the memory type manager is the simplest solution, >> but a solution with a fence for each free region in the free list is also >> possible. Then TTM needs a driver callback to be able order fences w r t >> echother. >> >> /Thomas >> > Radeon already handle multi-ring and ttm interaction with what we call > semaphore. Semaphore are created to synchronize with fence accross > different ring. I think the easiest solution is to just remove the bo > wait in ttm and let driver handle this. The wait can be removed, but only conditioned on a driver flag that says it supports unsynchronous buffer moves. The multi-ring case I'm talking about is: Ring 1 evicts buffer A, emits fence 0 Ring 2 evicts buffer B, emits fence 1 ..Other eviction takes place by various rings, perhaps including ring 1 and ring 2. Ring 3 moves buffer C into the space which happens bo be the union of the space prevously occupied buffer A and buffer B. Question is: which fence do you want to order this move with? The answer is whichever of fence 0 and 1 signals last. I think it's a reasonable thing for TTM to keep track of this, but in order to do so it needs a driver callback that can order two fences, and can order a job in the current ring w r t a fence. In radeon's case that driver callback would probably insert a barrier / semaphore. In the case of simpler hardware it would wait on one of the fences. /Thomas > > Cheers, > Jerome
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: > On 11/30/2012 05:30 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be >>>> needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of >>>> evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the >>>> CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? >>>> >>>> Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for >>>> the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be >>>> mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It >>>> would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old >>>> buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute >>>> commands in order. >>>> >>>> Marek >>> >>> >>> Actually asynchronous eviction / deletion is something I have been >>> prototyping for a while but never gotten around to implement in TTM: >>> >>> There are a few minor caveats: >>> >>> With buffer deletion, what you say is true for fixed memory, but not for >>> TT >>> memory where pages are reclaimed by the system after buffer destruction. >>> That means that we don't have to wait for idle to free GPU space, but we >>> need to wait before pages are handed back to the system. >>> >>> Swapout needs to access the contents of evicted buffers, but >>> synchronizing >>> doesn't need to happen until just before swapout. >>> >>> Multi-ring - CPU support: If another ring / engine or the CPU is about to >>> move in buffer contents to VRAM or a GPU aperture that was previously >>> evicted by another ring, it needs to sync with that eviction, but doesn't >>> know what buffer or even which buffers occupied the space previously. >>> Trivially one can attach a sync object to the memory type manager that >>> represents the last eviction from that memory type, and *any* engine (CPU >>> or >>> GPU) that moves buffer contents in needs to order that movement with >>> respect >>> to that fence. As you say, with a single ring and no CPU fallbacks, that >>> ordering is a no-op, but any common (non-driver based) implementation >>> needs >>> to support this. >>> >>> A single fence attached to the memory type manager is the simplest >>> solution, >>> but a solution with a fence for each free region in the free list is also >>> possible. Then TTM needs a driver callback to be able order fences w r t >>> echother. >>> >>> /Thomas >>> >> Radeon already handle multi-ring and ttm interaction with what we call >> semaphore. Semaphore are created to synchronize with fence accross >> different ring. I think the easiest solution is to just remove the bo >> wait in ttm and let driver handle this. > > > The wait can be removed, but only conditioned on a driver flag that says it > supports unsynchronous buffer moves. > > The multi-ring case I'm talking about is: > > Ring 1 evicts buffer A, emits fence 0 > Ring 2 evicts buffer B, emits fence 1 > ..Other eviction takes place by various rings, perhaps including ring 1 and > ring 2. > Ring 3 moves buffer C into the space which happens bo be the union of the > space prevously occupied buffer A and buffer B. > > Question is: which fence do you want to order this move with? > The answer is whichever of fence 0 and 1 signals last. > > I think it's a reasonable thing for TTM to keep track of this, but in order > to do so it needs a driver callback that > can order two fences, and can order a job in the current ring w r t a fence. > In radeon's case that driver callback > would probably insert a barrier / semaphore. In the case of simpler hardware > it would wait on one of the fences. > > /Thomas > I don't think we can order fence easily with a clean api, i would rather see ttm provide a list of fence to driver and tell to the driver before moving this object all the fence on this list need to be completed. I think it's as easy as associating fence with drm_mm (well nouveau as its own mm stuff) but idea would basicly be that fence are both associated with bo and with mm object so you know when a segment of memory is idle/available for use. Cheers, Jerome
On 11/30/2012 06:18 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: >> On 11/30/2012 05:30 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> >>> wrote: >>>> On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be >>>>> needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of >>>>> evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the >>>>> CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? >>>>> >>>>> Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for >>>>> the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be >>>>> mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It >>>>> would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old >>>>> buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute >>>>> commands in order. >>>>> >>>>> Marek >>>> >>>> Actually asynchronous eviction / deletion is something I have been >>>> prototyping for a while but never gotten around to implement in TTM: >>>> >>>> There are a few minor caveats: >>>> >>>> With buffer deletion, what you say is true for fixed memory, but not for >>>> TT >>>> memory where pages are reclaimed by the system after buffer destruction. >>>> That means that we don't have to wait for idle to free GPU space, but we >>>> need to wait before pages are handed back to the system. >>>> >>>> Swapout needs to access the contents of evicted buffers, but >>>> synchronizing >>>> doesn't need to happen until just before swapout. >>>> >>>> Multi-ring - CPU support: If another ring / engine or the CPU is about to >>>> move in buffer contents to VRAM or a GPU aperture that was previously >>>> evicted by another ring, it needs to sync with that eviction, but doesn't >>>> know what buffer or even which buffers occupied the space previously. >>>> Trivially one can attach a sync object to the memory type manager that >>>> represents the last eviction from that memory type, and *any* engine (CPU >>>> or >>>> GPU) that moves buffer contents in needs to order that movement with >>>> respect >>>> to that fence. As you say, with a single ring and no CPU fallbacks, that >>>> ordering is a no-op, but any common (non-driver based) implementation >>>> needs >>>> to support this. >>>> >>>> A single fence attached to the memory type manager is the simplest >>>> solution, >>>> but a solution with a fence for each free region in the free list is also >>>> possible. Then TTM needs a driver callback to be able order fences w r t >>>> echother. >>>> >>>> /Thomas >>>> >>> Radeon already handle multi-ring and ttm interaction with what we call >>> semaphore. Semaphore are created to synchronize with fence accross >>> different ring. I think the easiest solution is to just remove the bo >>> wait in ttm and let driver handle this. >> >> The wait can be removed, but only conditioned on a driver flag that says it >> supports unsynchronous buffer moves. >> >> The multi-ring case I'm talking about is: >> >> Ring 1 evicts buffer A, emits fence 0 >> Ring 2 evicts buffer B, emits fence 1 >> ..Other eviction takes place by various rings, perhaps including ring 1 and >> ring 2. >> Ring 3 moves buffer C into the space which happens bo be the union of the >> space prevously occupied buffer A and buffer B. >> >> Question is: which fence do you want to order this move with? >> The answer is whichever of fence 0 and 1 signals last. >> >> I think it's a reasonable thing for TTM to keep track of this, but in order >> to do so it needs a driver callback that >> can order two fences, and can order a job in the current ring w r t a fence. >> In radeon's case that driver callback >> would probably insert a barrier / semaphore. In the case of simpler hardware >> it would wait on one of the fences. >> >> /Thomas >> > I don't think we can order fence easily with a clean api, i would > rather see ttm provide a list of fence to driver and tell to the > driver before moving this object all the fence on this list need to be > completed. I think it's as easy as associating fence with drm_mm (well > nouveau as its own mm stuff) but idea would basicly be that fence are > both associated with bo and with mm object so you know when a segment > of memory is idle/available for use. > > Cheers, > Jerome Hmm. Agreed that would save a lot of barriers. Even if TTM tracks fences by free mm regions or a single fence for the whole memory type, it's a simple fact that fences from the same ring are trivially ordered, which means such a list should contain at most as many fences as there are rings. So, whatever approach is chosen, TTM needs to be able to determine that trivial ordering, and I think the upcoming cross-device fencing work will face the exact same problem. My proposed ordering API would look something like struct fence *order_fences(struct fence *fence_a, struct fence *fence_b, bool trivial_order, bool interruptible, bool no_wait_gpu) Returns which of the fences @fence_a and @fence_b that when signaled, guarantees that also the other fence has signaled. If @quick_order is true, and the driver cannot trivially order the fences, it may return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN), if @interruptible is true, any wait should be performed interruptibly and if no_wait_gpu is true, the function is not allowed to wait on gpu but should issue ERR_PTR(-EBUSY) if it needs to do so to order fences. (Hardware without semaphores can't order fences without waiting on them). The list approach you suggest would use @trivial_order = true, Single fence approach would use @trivial_order = false. And a first simple implementation in TTM would perhaps use your list approach with a single list for the whole memory type. /Thomas
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 06:43:36PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > On 11/30/2012 06:18 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: > >>On 11/30/2012 05:30 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >>>On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> > >>>wrote: > >>>>On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be > >>>>>needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of > >>>>>evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the > >>>>>CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? > >>>>> > >>>>>Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for > >>>>>the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be > >>>>>mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It > >>>>>would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old > >>>>>buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute > >>>>>commands in order. > >>>>> > >>>>>Marek > >>>> > >>>>Actually asynchronous eviction / deletion is something I have been > >>>>prototyping for a while but never gotten around to implement in TTM: > >>>> > >>>>There are a few minor caveats: > >>>> > >>>>With buffer deletion, what you say is true for fixed memory, but not for > >>>>TT > >>>>memory where pages are reclaimed by the system after buffer destruction. > >>>>That means that we don't have to wait for idle to free GPU space, but we > >>>>need to wait before pages are handed back to the system. > >>>> > >>>>Swapout needs to access the contents of evicted buffers, but > >>>>synchronizing > >>>>doesn't need to happen until just before swapout. > >>>> > >>>>Multi-ring - CPU support: If another ring / engine or the CPU is about to > >>>>move in buffer contents to VRAM or a GPU aperture that was previously > >>>>evicted by another ring, it needs to sync with that eviction, but doesn't > >>>>know what buffer or even which buffers occupied the space previously. > >>>>Trivially one can attach a sync object to the memory type manager that > >>>>represents the last eviction from that memory type, and *any* engine (CPU > >>>>or > >>>>GPU) that moves buffer contents in needs to order that movement with > >>>>respect > >>>>to that fence. As you say, with a single ring and no CPU fallbacks, that > >>>>ordering is a no-op, but any common (non-driver based) implementation > >>>>needs > >>>>to support this. > >>>> > >>>>A single fence attached to the memory type manager is the simplest > >>>>solution, > >>>>but a solution with a fence for each free region in the free list is also > >>>>possible. Then TTM needs a driver callback to be able order fences w r t > >>>>echother. > >>>> > >>>>/Thomas > >>>> > >>>Radeon already handle multi-ring and ttm interaction with what we call > >>>semaphore. Semaphore are created to synchronize with fence accross > >>>different ring. I think the easiest solution is to just remove the bo > >>>wait in ttm and let driver handle this. > >> > >>The wait can be removed, but only conditioned on a driver flag that says it > >>supports unsynchronous buffer moves. > >> > >>The multi-ring case I'm talking about is: > >> > >>Ring 1 evicts buffer A, emits fence 0 > >>Ring 2 evicts buffer B, emits fence 1 > >>..Other eviction takes place by various rings, perhaps including ring 1 and > >>ring 2. > >>Ring 3 moves buffer C into the space which happens bo be the union of the > >>space prevously occupied buffer A and buffer B. > >> > >>Question is: which fence do you want to order this move with? > >>The answer is whichever of fence 0 and 1 signals last. > >> > >>I think it's a reasonable thing for TTM to keep track of this, but in order > >>to do so it needs a driver callback that > >>can order two fences, and can order a job in the current ring w r t a fence. > >>In radeon's case that driver callback > >>would probably insert a barrier / semaphore. In the case of simpler hardware > >>it would wait on one of the fences. > >> > >>/Thomas > >> > >I don't think we can order fence easily with a clean api, i would > >rather see ttm provide a list of fence to driver and tell to the > >driver before moving this object all the fence on this list need to be > >completed. I think it's as easy as associating fence with drm_mm (well > >nouveau as its own mm stuff) but idea would basicly be that fence are > >both associated with bo and with mm object so you know when a segment > >of memory is idle/available for use. > > > >Cheers, > >Jerome > > > Hmm. Agreed that would save a lot of barriers. > > Even if TTM tracks fences by free mm regions or a single fence for > the whole memory type, it's a simple fact that fences from the same > ring are trivially ordered, which means such a list should contain at > most as many fences as there are rings. Yes, one function callback is needed to know which fence is necessary, also ttm needs to know the number of rings (note that i think newer hw will have somethings like 1024 rings or even more, even today hw might have as many as i think nvidia channel is pretty much what i define to be a ring). But i think most case will be few fence accross few rings. Like 1 ring is the dma ring and then you have a ring for one of the GL context that using the memory and another ring for the new context that want to use the memory. > > So, whatever approach is chosen, TTM needs to be able to determine > that trivial ordering, and I think the upcoming cross-device fencing > work will face the exact same problem. > > My proposed ordering API would look something like > > struct fence *order_fences(struct fence *fence_a, struct fence > *fence_b, bool trivial_order, bool interruptible, bool no_wait_gpu) > > Returns which of the fences @fence_a and @fence_b that when > signaled, guarantees that also the other > fence has signaled. If @quick_order is true, and the driver cannot > trivially order the fences, it may return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN), > if @interruptible is true, any wait should be performed > interruptibly and if no_wait_gpu is true, the function is not > allowed to wait on gpu but should issue ERR_PTR(-EBUSY) if it needs > to do so to order fences. > > (Hardware without semaphores can't order fences without waiting on them). > > The list approach you suggest would use @trivial_order = true, > Single fence approach would use @trivial_order = false. > > And a first simple implementation in TTM would perhaps use your list > approach with a single list for the whole memory type. > > /Thomas I would rather add a callback like : ttm_reduce_fences(unsigned *nfences, fence **fencearray) So each mm block has an array of fence, each time a new fence is added to the array you callback to reduce the array of fence, it remove all the fence that can be removed from the array. It might even remove all of them if they are signaled. In the ttm bo move callback you provide the list list of mm block (each having its array of fence) and the move callback is responsible to use what ever mecanism it wants to properly schedule and synchronize the move. One thing i am not sure is should we merge free mm block and merge/reduce their fence array or should we provide a list of mm block to the move callback. I think here there is tradeoff you probably want to merge small mm block up to a certain point but you don't want to merge so much that any allocation will have to wait on a zillions fences. In the memcpy fallback you just wait on each fence in the array. This move all the synchronization into the driver and i think it's the easiest way to do thing. Cheers, Jerome
On 11/30/2012 07:07 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 06:43:36PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >> On 11/30/2012 06:18 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: >>>> On 11/30/2012 05:30 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>>>>>> What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be >>>>>>> needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of >>>>>>> evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the >>>>>>> CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for >>>>>>> the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be >>>>>>> mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It >>>>>>> would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old >>>>>>> buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute >>>>>>> commands in order. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marek >>>>>> Actually asynchronous eviction / deletion is something I have been >>>>>> prototyping for a while but never gotten around to implement in TTM: >>>>>> >>>>>> There are a few minor caveats: >>>>>> >>>>>> With buffer deletion, what you say is true for fixed memory, but not for >>>>>> TT >>>>>> memory where pages are reclaimed by the system after buffer destruction. >>>>>> That means that we don't have to wait for idle to free GPU space, but we >>>>>> need to wait before pages are handed back to the system. >>>>>> >>>>>> Swapout needs to access the contents of evicted buffers, but >>>>>> synchronizing >>>>>> doesn't need to happen until just before swapout. >>>>>> >>>>>> Multi-ring - CPU support: If another ring / engine or the CPU is about to >>>>>> move in buffer contents to VRAM or a GPU aperture that was previously >>>>>> evicted by another ring, it needs to sync with that eviction, but doesn't >>>>>> know what buffer or even which buffers occupied the space previously. >>>>>> Trivially one can attach a sync object to the memory type manager that >>>>>> represents the last eviction from that memory type, and *any* engine (CPU >>>>>> or >>>>>> GPU) that moves buffer contents in needs to order that movement with >>>>>> respect >>>>>> to that fence. As you say, with a single ring and no CPU fallbacks, that >>>>>> ordering is a no-op, but any common (non-driver based) implementation >>>>>> needs >>>>>> to support this. >>>>>> >>>>>> A single fence attached to the memory type manager is the simplest >>>>>> solution, >>>>>> but a solution with a fence for each free region in the free list is also >>>>>> possible. Then TTM needs a driver callback to be able order fences w r t >>>>>> echother. >>>>>> >>>>>> /Thomas >>>>>> >>>>> Radeon already handle multi-ring and ttm interaction with what we call >>>>> semaphore. Semaphore are created to synchronize with fence accross >>>>> different ring. I think the easiest solution is to just remove the bo >>>>> wait in ttm and let driver handle this. >>>> The wait can be removed, but only conditioned on a driver flag that says it >>>> supports unsynchronous buffer moves. >>>> >>>> The multi-ring case I'm talking about is: >>>> >>>> Ring 1 evicts buffer A, emits fence 0 >>>> Ring 2 evicts buffer B, emits fence 1 >>>> ..Other eviction takes place by various rings, perhaps including ring 1 and >>>> ring 2. >>>> Ring 3 moves buffer C into the space which happens bo be the union of the >>>> space prevously occupied buffer A and buffer B. >>>> >>>> Question is: which fence do you want to order this move with? >>>> The answer is whichever of fence 0 and 1 signals last. >>>> >>>> I think it's a reasonable thing for TTM to keep track of this, but in order >>>> to do so it needs a driver callback that >>>> can order two fences, and can order a job in the current ring w r t a fence. >>>> In radeon's case that driver callback >>>> would probably insert a barrier / semaphore. In the case of simpler hardware >>>> it would wait on one of the fences. >>>> >>>> /Thomas >>>> >>> I don't think we can order fence easily with a clean api, i would >>> rather see ttm provide a list of fence to driver and tell to the >>> driver before moving this object all the fence on this list need to be >>> completed. I think it's as easy as associating fence with drm_mm (well >>> nouveau as its own mm stuff) but idea would basicly be that fence are >>> both associated with bo and with mm object so you know when a segment >>> of memory is idle/available for use. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jerome >> >> Hmm. Agreed that would save a lot of barriers. >> >> Even if TTM tracks fences by free mm regions or a single fence for >> the whole memory type, it's a simple fact that fences from the same >> ring are trivially ordered, which means such a list should contain at >> most as many fences as there are rings. > Yes, one function callback is needed to know which fence is necessary, > also ttm needs to know the number of rings (note that i think newer > hw will have somethings like 1024 rings or even more, even today hw > might have as many as i think nvidia channel is pretty much what i > define to be a ring). > > But i think most case will be few fence accross few rings. Like 1 > ring is the dma ring and then you have a ring for one of the GL > context that using the memory and another ring for the new context > that want to use the memory. > >> So, whatever approach is chosen, TTM needs to be able to determine >> that trivial ordering, and I think the upcoming cross-device fencing >> work will face the exact same problem. >> >> My proposed ordering API would look something like >> >> struct fence *order_fences(struct fence *fence_a, struct fence >> *fence_b, bool trivial_order, bool interruptible, bool no_wait_gpu) >> >> Returns which of the fences @fence_a and @fence_b that when >> signaled, guarantees that also the other >> fence has signaled. If @quick_order is true, and the driver cannot >> trivially order the fences, it may return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN), >> if @interruptible is true, any wait should be performed >> interruptibly and if no_wait_gpu is true, the function is not >> allowed to wait on gpu but should issue ERR_PTR(-EBUSY) if it needs >> to do so to order fences. >> >> (Hardware without semaphores can't order fences without waiting on them). >> >> The list approach you suggest would use @trivial_order = true, >> Single fence approach would use @trivial_order = false. >> >> And a first simple implementation in TTM would perhaps use your list >> approach with a single list for the whole memory type. >> >> /Thomas > I would rather add a callback like : > > ttm_reduce_fences(unsigned *nfences, fence **fencearray) I don't agree here. I think the fence order function is more versatile and a good abstraction that can be applied in a number of cases to this problem. Anyway we should sync this with Maarten and his fence work. The same problem applies to attaching shared fences to a bo. > > In the ttm bo move callback you provide the list list of mm block (each > having its array of fence) and the move callback is responsible to > use what ever mecanism it wants to properly schedule and synchronize the > move. Agreed. > > One thing i am not sure is should we merge free mm block and merge/reduce > their fence array or should we provide a list of mm block to the move > callback. I think here there is tradeoff you probably want to merge small > mm block up to a certain point but you don't want to merge so much that > any allocation will have to wait on a zillions fences. As mentioned previously we can choose the complexity here, but the simplest approach would be to have a single list for the whole manager. I think if we don't merge mm blocks immediately when freed, we're going to use up a lot of resources. /Thomas
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 07:31:04PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > On 11/30/2012 07:07 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 06:43:36PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > >>On 11/30/2012 06:18 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >>>On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: > >>>>On 11/30/2012 05:30 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >>>>>On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> > >>>>>wrote: > >>>>>>On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: > >>>>>>>What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be > >>>>>>>needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of > >>>>>>>evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the > >>>>>>>CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for > >>>>>>>the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be > >>>>>>>mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It > >>>>>>>would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old > >>>>>>>buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute > >>>>>>>commands in order. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Marek > >>>>>>Actually asynchronous eviction / deletion is something I have been > >>>>>>prototyping for a while but never gotten around to implement in TTM: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>There are a few minor caveats: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>With buffer deletion, what you say is true for fixed memory, but not for > >>>>>>TT > >>>>>>memory where pages are reclaimed by the system after buffer destruction. > >>>>>>That means that we don't have to wait for idle to free GPU space, but we > >>>>>>need to wait before pages are handed back to the system. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Swapout needs to access the contents of evicted buffers, but > >>>>>>synchronizing > >>>>>>doesn't need to happen until just before swapout. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Multi-ring - CPU support: If another ring / engine or the CPU is about to > >>>>>>move in buffer contents to VRAM or a GPU aperture that was previously > >>>>>>evicted by another ring, it needs to sync with that eviction, but doesn't > >>>>>>know what buffer or even which buffers occupied the space previously. > >>>>>>Trivially one can attach a sync object to the memory type manager that > >>>>>>represents the last eviction from that memory type, and *any* engine (CPU > >>>>>>or > >>>>>>GPU) that moves buffer contents in needs to order that movement with > >>>>>>respect > >>>>>>to that fence. As you say, with a single ring and no CPU fallbacks, that > >>>>>>ordering is a no-op, but any common (non-driver based) implementation > >>>>>>needs > >>>>>>to support this. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>A single fence attached to the memory type manager is the simplest > >>>>>>solution, > >>>>>>but a solution with a fence for each free region in the free list is also > >>>>>>possible. Then TTM needs a driver callback to be able order fences w r t > >>>>>>echother. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>/Thomas > >>>>>> > >>>>>Radeon already handle multi-ring and ttm interaction with what we call > >>>>>semaphore. Semaphore are created to synchronize with fence accross > >>>>>different ring. I think the easiest solution is to just remove the bo > >>>>>wait in ttm and let driver handle this. > >>>>The wait can be removed, but only conditioned on a driver flag that says it > >>>>supports unsynchronous buffer moves. > >>>> > >>>>The multi-ring case I'm talking about is: > >>>> > >>>>Ring 1 evicts buffer A, emits fence 0 > >>>>Ring 2 evicts buffer B, emits fence 1 > >>>>..Other eviction takes place by various rings, perhaps including ring 1 and > >>>>ring 2. > >>>>Ring 3 moves buffer C into the space which happens bo be the union of the > >>>>space prevously occupied buffer A and buffer B. > >>>> > >>>>Question is: which fence do you want to order this move with? > >>>>The answer is whichever of fence 0 and 1 signals last. > >>>> > >>>>I think it's a reasonable thing for TTM to keep track of this, but in order > >>>>to do so it needs a driver callback that > >>>>can order two fences, and can order a job in the current ring w r t a fence. > >>>>In radeon's case that driver callback > >>>>would probably insert a barrier / semaphore. In the case of simpler hardware > >>>>it would wait on one of the fences. > >>>> > >>>>/Thomas > >>>> > >>>I don't think we can order fence easily with a clean api, i would > >>>rather see ttm provide a list of fence to driver and tell to the > >>>driver before moving this object all the fence on this list need to be > >>>completed. I think it's as easy as associating fence with drm_mm (well > >>>nouveau as its own mm stuff) but idea would basicly be that fence are > >>>both associated with bo and with mm object so you know when a segment > >>>of memory is idle/available for use. > >>> > >>>Cheers, > >>>Jerome > >> > >>Hmm. Agreed that would save a lot of barriers. > >> > >>Even if TTM tracks fences by free mm regions or a single fence for > >>the whole memory type, it's a simple fact that fences from the same > >>ring are trivially ordered, which means such a list should contain at > >>most as many fences as there are rings. > >Yes, one function callback is needed to know which fence is necessary, > >also ttm needs to know the number of rings (note that i think newer > >hw will have somethings like 1024 rings or even more, even today hw > >might have as many as i think nvidia channel is pretty much what i > >define to be a ring). > > > >But i think most case will be few fence accross few rings. Like 1 > >ring is the dma ring and then you have a ring for one of the GL > >context that using the memory and another ring for the new context > >that want to use the memory. > > > >>So, whatever approach is chosen, TTM needs to be able to determine > >>that trivial ordering, and I think the upcoming cross-device fencing > >>work will face the exact same problem. > >> > >>My proposed ordering API would look something like > >> > >>struct fence *order_fences(struct fence *fence_a, struct fence > >>*fence_b, bool trivial_order, bool interruptible, bool no_wait_gpu) > >> > >>Returns which of the fences @fence_a and @fence_b that when > >>signaled, guarantees that also the other > >>fence has signaled. If @quick_order is true, and the driver cannot > >>trivially order the fences, it may return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN), > >>if @interruptible is true, any wait should be performed > >>interruptibly and if no_wait_gpu is true, the function is not > >>allowed to wait on gpu but should issue ERR_PTR(-EBUSY) if it needs > >>to do so to order fences. > >> > >>(Hardware without semaphores can't order fences without waiting on them). > >> > >>The list approach you suggest would use @trivial_order = true, > >>Single fence approach would use @trivial_order = false. > >> > >>And a first simple implementation in TTM would perhaps use your list > >>approach with a single list for the whole memory type. > >> > >>/Thomas > >I would rather add a callback like : > > > >ttm_reduce_fences(unsigned *nfences, fence **fencearray) > > I don't agree here. I think the fence order function is more > versatile and a good abstraction that can be > applied in a number of cases to this problem. Anyway we should sync > this with Maarten and his > fence work. The same problem applies to attaching shared fences to a bo. Radeon already handle the bo case on multi-ring and i think it should be left to the driver to do what its necessary there. I don't think here more versatility is bad, in fact i am pretty sure that no hw can give fence ordering and i also think that if driver have to track multi-ring fence ordering it will just waste resource for no good reasons. For tracking that in radeon i will need to keep a list of semaphore and knows which semaphores insure synchronization btw which ring and for each which fence are concerned just thinking to it it would be a messy graph with tons of nodes. Of course here i am thinking in term of newer GPU with tons of rings, GPU with one ring, which are a vanishing category as newer opencl require more ring, are easy to handle but i really don't think we should design for those. I think here we will have to agree to disagree but i see a fence array as a perfect solution that is flexible enough and use the less resource both in term of cpu usage and memory (assuming proper implementation). > > > > >In the ttm bo move callback you provide the list list of mm block (each > >having its array of fence) and the move callback is responsible to > >use what ever mecanism it wants to properly schedule and synchronize the > >move. > > Agreed. > > > > >One thing i am not sure is should we merge free mm block and merge/reduce > >their fence array or should we provide a list of mm block to the move > >callback. I think here there is tradeoff you probably want to merge small > >mm block up to a certain point but you don't want to merge so much that > >any allocation will have to wait on a zillions fences. > > As mentioned previously we can choose the complexity here, but the simplest > approach would be to have a single list for the whole manager. > > I think if we don't merge mm blocks immediately when freed, we're > going to use > up a lot of resources. > I think here there should be a granularity something like don't merge block over 16M or don't merge block if they have more than N fences if merged together. Of course it means a special allocator but as my work on radeon memory placement shows i think that the whole vram business (which is really where the multi-fence will be used the most) needs a worker thread that schedule works every now and then, this worker thread could also merge mm when fence complete ... But i really don't think there should be a list for the whole manager, think about the case of a very long cl running job that is still running but already have it's eviction scheduled and it mm vram node marked as free with a fence. If we have a list per manager than vram becomes unavailable for as long as this cl job runs. I am thinking here to newer cpu that can partition there compute unit (CL 1.2 spec mandate that iirc) for instance btw cl and gl so the gpu still can run other job while this cl things is going on. While if we only merge block up to a certain point we can have other work done on the gpu using this memory manager. Cheers, Jerome
On 11/30/2012 08:25 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 07:31:04PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >> On 11/30/2012 07:07 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 06:43:36PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >>>> On 11/30/2012 06:18 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/30/2012 05:30 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>>>>>>>> What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be >>>>>>>>> needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of >>>>>>>>> evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the >>>>>>>>> CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for >>>>>>>>> the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be >>>>>>>>> mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It >>>>>>>>> would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old >>>>>>>>> buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute >>>>>>>>> commands in order. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Marek >>>>>>>> Actually asynchronous eviction / deletion is something I have been >>>>>>>> prototyping for a while but never gotten around to implement in TTM: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are a few minor caveats: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With buffer deletion, what you say is true for fixed memory, but not for >>>>>>>> TT >>>>>>>> memory where pages are reclaimed by the system after buffer destruction. >>>>>>>> That means that we don't have to wait for idle to free GPU space, but we >>>>>>>> need to wait before pages are handed back to the system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Swapout needs to access the contents of evicted buffers, but >>>>>>>> synchronizing >>>>>>>> doesn't need to happen until just before swapout. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Multi-ring - CPU support: If another ring / engine or the CPU is about to >>>>>>>> move in buffer contents to VRAM or a GPU aperture that was previously >>>>>>>> evicted by another ring, it needs to sync with that eviction, but doesn't >>>>>>>> know what buffer or even which buffers occupied the space previously. >>>>>>>> Trivially one can attach a sync object to the memory type manager that >>>>>>>> represents the last eviction from that memory type, and *any* engine (CPU >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> GPU) that moves buffer contents in needs to order that movement with >>>>>>>> respect >>>>>>>> to that fence. As you say, with a single ring and no CPU fallbacks, that >>>>>>>> ordering is a no-op, but any common (non-driver based) implementation >>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>> to support this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A single fence attached to the memory type manager is the simplest >>>>>>>> solution, >>>>>>>> but a solution with a fence for each free region in the free list is also >>>>>>>> possible. Then TTM needs a driver callback to be able order fences w r t >>>>>>>> echother. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Thomas >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Radeon already handle multi-ring and ttm interaction with what we call >>>>>>> semaphore. Semaphore are created to synchronize with fence accross >>>>>>> different ring. I think the easiest solution is to just remove the bo >>>>>>> wait in ttm and let driver handle this. >>>>>> The wait can be removed, but only conditioned on a driver flag that says it >>>>>> supports unsynchronous buffer moves. >>>>>> >>>>>> The multi-ring case I'm talking about is: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ring 1 evicts buffer A, emits fence 0 >>>>>> Ring 2 evicts buffer B, emits fence 1 >>>>>> ..Other eviction takes place by various rings, perhaps including ring 1 and >>>>>> ring 2. >>>>>> Ring 3 moves buffer C into the space which happens bo be the union of the >>>>>> space prevously occupied buffer A and buffer B. >>>>>> >>>>>> Question is: which fence do you want to order this move with? >>>>>> The answer is whichever of fence 0 and 1 signals last. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it's a reasonable thing for TTM to keep track of this, but in order >>>>>> to do so it needs a driver callback that >>>>>> can order two fences, and can order a job in the current ring w r t a fence. >>>>>> In radeon's case that driver callback >>>>>> would probably insert a barrier / semaphore. In the case of simpler hardware >>>>>> it would wait on one of the fences. >>>>>> >>>>>> /Thomas >>>>>> >>>>> I don't think we can order fence easily with a clean api, i would >>>>> rather see ttm provide a list of fence to driver and tell to the >>>>> driver before moving this object all the fence on this list need to be >>>>> completed. I think it's as easy as associating fence with drm_mm (well >>>>> nouveau as its own mm stuff) but idea would basicly be that fence are >>>>> both associated with bo and with mm object so you know when a segment >>>>> of memory is idle/available for use. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Jerome >>>> Hmm. Agreed that would save a lot of barriers. >>>> >>>> Even if TTM tracks fences by free mm regions or a single fence for >>>> the whole memory type, it's a simple fact that fences from the same >>>> ring are trivially ordered, which means such a list should contain at >>>> most as many fences as there are rings. >>> Yes, one function callback is needed to know which fence is necessary, >>> also ttm needs to know the number of rings (note that i think newer >>> hw will have somethings like 1024 rings or even more, even today hw >>> might have as many as i think nvidia channel is pretty much what i >>> define to be a ring). >>> >>> But i think most case will be few fence accross few rings. Like 1 >>> ring is the dma ring and then you have a ring for one of the GL >>> context that using the memory and another ring for the new context >>> that want to use the memory. >>> >>>> So, whatever approach is chosen, TTM needs to be able to determine >>>> that trivial ordering, and I think the upcoming cross-device fencing >>>> work will face the exact same problem. >>>> >>>> My proposed ordering API would look something like >>>> >>>> struct fence *order_fences(struct fence *fence_a, struct fence >>>> *fence_b, bool trivial_order, bool interruptible, bool no_wait_gpu) >>>> >>>> Returns which of the fences @fence_a and @fence_b that when >>>> signaled, guarantees that also the other >>>> fence has signaled. If @quick_order is true, and the driver cannot >>>> trivially order the fences, it may return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN), >>>> if @interruptible is true, any wait should be performed >>>> interruptibly and if no_wait_gpu is true, the function is not >>>> allowed to wait on gpu but should issue ERR_PTR(-EBUSY) if it needs >>>> to do so to order fences. >>>> >>>> (Hardware without semaphores can't order fences without waiting on them). >>>> >>>> The list approach you suggest would use @trivial_order = true, >>>> Single fence approach would use @trivial_order = false. >>>> >>>> And a first simple implementation in TTM would perhaps use your list >>>> approach with a single list for the whole memory type. >>>> >>>> /Thomas >>> I would rather add a callback like : >>> >>> ttm_reduce_fences(unsigned *nfences, fence **fencearray) >> I don't agree here. I think the fence order function is more >> versatile and a good abstraction that can be >> applied in a number of cases to this problem. Anyway we should sync >> this with Maarten and his >> fence work. The same problem applies to attaching shared fences to a bo. > Radeon already handle the bo case on multi-ring and i think it should > be left to the driver to do what its necessary there. > > I don't think here more versatility is bad, in fact i am pretty sure > that no hw can give fence ordering and i also think that if driver have > to track multi-ring fence ordering it will just waste resource for no > good reasons. For tracking that in radeon i will need to keep a list > of semaphore and knows which semaphores insure synchronization btw > which ring and for each which fence are concerned just thinking to it > it would be a messy graph with tons of nodes. > > Of course here i am thinking in term of newer GPU with tons of rings, > GPU with one ring, which are a vanishing category as newer opencl > require more ring, are easy to handle but i really don't think we > should design for those. The biggest problem I see with ttm_reduce_fences() is that it seems to have high complexity, since it doesn't know which fence is the new one. And if it did, it would only be a multi-fence version of order_fences(trivial=true). > I think here we will have to agree to disagree but i see a fence array > as a perfect solution that is flexible enough and use the less resource > both in term of cpu usage and memory (assuming proper implementation). I thought it would always require nrings*8 bytes on each memory block? > > I think here there should be a granularity something like don't merge block > over 16M or don't merge block if they have more than N fences if merged > together. Of course it means a special allocator but as my work on radeon > memory placement shows i think that the whole vram business (which is really > where the multi-fence will be used the most) needs a worker thread that > schedule works every now and then, this worker thread could also merge mm > when fence complete ... > > But i really don't think there should be a list for the whole manager, think > about the case of a very long cl running job that is still running but already > have it's eviction scheduled and it mm vram node marked as free with a fence. > If we have a list per manager than vram becomes unavailable for as long as > this cl job runs. I am thinking here to newer cpu that can partition there > compute unit (CL 1.2 spec mandate that iirc) for instance btw cl and gl so the > gpu still can run other job while this cl things is going on. Yeah, I'm not saying this is an efficient solution. I'm saying it's the simplest solution. We can make a data structure arbitrarily big out of this, or perhaps provide a selection of algorithms to choose from. /Thomas
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:35:49PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > On 11/30/2012 08:25 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 07:31:04PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > >>On 11/30/2012 07:07 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >>>On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 06:43:36PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > >>>>On 11/30/2012 06:18 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >>>>>On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: > >>>>>>On 11/30/2012 05:30 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >>>>>>>On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> > >>>>>>>wrote: > >>>>>>>>On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: > >>>>>>>>>What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be > >>>>>>>>>needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of > >>>>>>>>>evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the > >>>>>>>>>CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for > >>>>>>>>>the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be > >>>>>>>>>mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It > >>>>>>>>>would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old > >>>>>>>>>buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute > >>>>>>>>>commands in order. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Marek > >>>>>>>>Actually asynchronous eviction / deletion is something I have been > >>>>>>>>prototyping for a while but never gotten around to implement in TTM: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>There are a few minor caveats: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>With buffer deletion, what you say is true for fixed memory, but not for > >>>>>>>>TT > >>>>>>>>memory where pages are reclaimed by the system after buffer destruction. > >>>>>>>>That means that we don't have to wait for idle to free GPU space, but we > >>>>>>>>need to wait before pages are handed back to the system. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Swapout needs to access the contents of evicted buffers, but > >>>>>>>>synchronizing > >>>>>>>>doesn't need to happen until just before swapout. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Multi-ring - CPU support: If another ring / engine or the CPU is about to > >>>>>>>>move in buffer contents to VRAM or a GPU aperture that was previously > >>>>>>>>evicted by another ring, it needs to sync with that eviction, but doesn't > >>>>>>>>know what buffer or even which buffers occupied the space previously. > >>>>>>>>Trivially one can attach a sync object to the memory type manager that > >>>>>>>>represents the last eviction from that memory type, and *any* engine (CPU > >>>>>>>>or > >>>>>>>>GPU) that moves buffer contents in needs to order that movement with > >>>>>>>>respect > >>>>>>>>to that fence. As you say, with a single ring and no CPU fallbacks, that > >>>>>>>>ordering is a no-op, but any common (non-driver based) implementation > >>>>>>>>needs > >>>>>>>>to support this. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>A single fence attached to the memory type manager is the simplest > >>>>>>>>solution, > >>>>>>>>but a solution with a fence for each free region in the free list is also > >>>>>>>>possible. Then TTM needs a driver callback to be able order fences w r t > >>>>>>>>echother. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>/Thomas > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Radeon already handle multi-ring and ttm interaction with what we call > >>>>>>>semaphore. Semaphore are created to synchronize with fence accross > >>>>>>>different ring. I think the easiest solution is to just remove the bo > >>>>>>>wait in ttm and let driver handle this. > >>>>>>The wait can be removed, but only conditioned on a driver flag that says it > >>>>>>supports unsynchronous buffer moves. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The multi-ring case I'm talking about is: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Ring 1 evicts buffer A, emits fence 0 > >>>>>>Ring 2 evicts buffer B, emits fence 1 > >>>>>>..Other eviction takes place by various rings, perhaps including ring 1 and > >>>>>>ring 2. > >>>>>>Ring 3 moves buffer C into the space which happens bo be the union of the > >>>>>>space prevously occupied buffer A and buffer B. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Question is: which fence do you want to order this move with? > >>>>>>The answer is whichever of fence 0 and 1 signals last. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I think it's a reasonable thing for TTM to keep track of this, but in order > >>>>>>to do so it needs a driver callback that > >>>>>>can order two fences, and can order a job in the current ring w r t a fence. > >>>>>>In radeon's case that driver callback > >>>>>>would probably insert a barrier / semaphore. In the case of simpler hardware > >>>>>>it would wait on one of the fences. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>/Thomas > >>>>>> > >>>>>I don't think we can order fence easily with a clean api, i would > >>>>>rather see ttm provide a list of fence to driver and tell to the > >>>>>driver before moving this object all the fence on this list need to be > >>>>>completed. I think it's as easy as associating fence with drm_mm (well > >>>>>nouveau as its own mm stuff) but idea would basicly be that fence are > >>>>>both associated with bo and with mm object so you know when a segment > >>>>>of memory is idle/available for use. > >>>>> > >>>>>Cheers, > >>>>>Jerome > >>>>Hmm. Agreed that would save a lot of barriers. > >>>> > >>>>Even if TTM tracks fences by free mm regions or a single fence for > >>>>the whole memory type, it's a simple fact that fences from the same > >>>>ring are trivially ordered, which means such a list should contain at > >>>>most as many fences as there are rings. > >>>Yes, one function callback is needed to know which fence is necessary, > >>>also ttm needs to know the number of rings (note that i think newer > >>>hw will have somethings like 1024 rings or even more, even today hw > >>>might have as many as i think nvidia channel is pretty much what i > >>>define to be a ring). > >>> > >>>But i think most case will be few fence accross few rings. Like 1 > >>>ring is the dma ring and then you have a ring for one of the GL > >>>context that using the memory and another ring for the new context > >>>that want to use the memory. > >>> > >>>>So, whatever approach is chosen, TTM needs to be able to determine > >>>>that trivial ordering, and I think the upcoming cross-device fencing > >>>>work will face the exact same problem. > >>>> > >>>>My proposed ordering API would look something like > >>>> > >>>>struct fence *order_fences(struct fence *fence_a, struct fence > >>>>*fence_b, bool trivial_order, bool interruptible, bool no_wait_gpu) > >>>> > >>>>Returns which of the fences @fence_a and @fence_b that when > >>>>signaled, guarantees that also the other > >>>>fence has signaled. If @quick_order is true, and the driver cannot > >>>>trivially order the fences, it may return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN), > >>>>if @interruptible is true, any wait should be performed > >>>>interruptibly and if no_wait_gpu is true, the function is not > >>>>allowed to wait on gpu but should issue ERR_PTR(-EBUSY) if it needs > >>>>to do so to order fences. > >>>> > >>>>(Hardware without semaphores can't order fences without waiting on them). > >>>> > >>>>The list approach you suggest would use @trivial_order = true, > >>>>Single fence approach would use @trivial_order = false. > >>>> > >>>>And a first simple implementation in TTM would perhaps use your list > >>>>approach with a single list for the whole memory type. > >>>> > >>>>/Thomas > >>>I would rather add a callback like : > >>> > >>>ttm_reduce_fences(unsigned *nfences, fence **fencearray) > >>I don't agree here. I think the fence order function is more > >>versatile and a good abstraction that can be > >>applied in a number of cases to this problem. Anyway we should sync > >>this with Maarten and his > >>fence work. The same problem applies to attaching shared fences to a bo. > >Radeon already handle the bo case on multi-ring and i think it should > >be left to the driver to do what its necessary there. > > > >I don't think here more versatility is bad, in fact i am pretty sure > >that no hw can give fence ordering and i also think that if driver have > >to track multi-ring fence ordering it will just waste resource for no > >good reasons. For tracking that in radeon i will need to keep a list > >of semaphore and knows which semaphores insure synchronization btw > >which ring and for each which fence are concerned just thinking to it > >it would be a messy graph with tons of nodes. > > > >Of course here i am thinking in term of newer GPU with tons of rings, > >GPU with one ring, which are a vanishing category as newer opencl > >require more ring, are easy to handle but i really don't think we > >should design for those. > The biggest problem I see with ttm_reduce_fences() is that it seems > to have high complexity, since it > doesn't know which fence is the new one. And if it did, it would > only be a multi-fence version of > order_fences(trivial=true). I am sure all driver with multi-ring will store ring id in there fence structure, that's from my pov a requirement. So when you get a list of fence you first go over fence on the same ring and so far all fence implementation use increasing sequence number for fence. So reducing becomes as easy as only leaving the most recent fence for each of the ring with an active fence. At the same time it could check (assuming it's a quick operation) if fence is already signaled or not. For radeon this function would be very small, a simple imbricated loop with couple test in the loop. > >I think here we will have to agree to disagree but i see a fence array > >as a perfect solution that is flexible enough and use the less resource > >both in term of cpu usage and memory (assuming proper implementation). > I thought it would always require nrings*8 bytes on each memory block? As i said i think there won't be much more than 3/4 ring on average for each block of memory. So idea is probably to alloc for 8ring and resize in rare case where we need more. It sound very unlikely to have more than 3/4 rings with active fence at any point in time. You would have a dma ring, 3d ring for one client, maybe a 3d ring for another client, video decoder ring. Also driver can do optimization like virtualizing fence for each partition of the gpu this would drasticly reduce the number of fence like 1 for dma, 1 for each partition of gpu, 1 for the video decoder, 1 for display. Given that there can't be that many partition (i think on radeon you can only partition per CU which is something like 4 or 8). In other word when you have n rings that do works on m partitions of the gpu you only needs m fences categorie as you know work on each partition will complete in order. > > > >I think here there should be a granularity something like don't merge block > >over 16M or don't merge block if they have more than N fences if merged > >together. Of course it means a special allocator but as my work on radeon > >memory placement shows i think that the whole vram business (which is really > >where the multi-fence will be used the most) needs a worker thread that > >schedule works every now and then, this worker thread could also merge mm > >when fence complete ... > > > >But i really don't think there should be a list for the whole manager, think > >about the case of a very long cl running job that is still running but already > >have it's eviction scheduled and it mm vram node marked as free with a fence. > >If we have a list per manager than vram becomes unavailable for as long as > >this cl job runs. I am thinking here to newer cpu that can partition there > >compute unit (CL 1.2 spec mandate that iirc) for instance btw cl and gl so the > >gpu still can run other job while this cl things is going on. > > Yeah, I'm not saying this is an efficient solution. I'm saying it's > the simplest solution. We can make > a data structure arbitrarily big out of this, or perhaps provide a > selection of algorithms to > choose from. > > /Thomas Customizing drm_mm to handle doing allocation from several adjacent block doesn't sounds too complex, we could introduce virtual mm block that group all adjacent block and keep an array of fence for each of the subblock with active fence. But yes this could be done as a second step. Cheers, Jerome
On 11/30/2012 10:07 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:35:49PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >> On 11/30/2012 08:25 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 07:31:04PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >>>> On 11/30/2012 07:07 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 06:43:36PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >>>>>> On 11/30/2012 06:18 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/30/2012 05:30 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be >>>>>>>>>>> needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of >>>>>>>>>>> evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the >>>>>>>>>>> CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for >>>>>>>>>>> the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be >>>>>>>>>>> mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It >>>>>>>>>>> would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old >>>>>>>>>>> buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute >>>>>>>>>>> commands in order. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Marek >>>>>>>>>> Actually asynchronous eviction / deletion is something I have been >>>>>>>>>> prototyping for a while but never gotten around to implement in TTM: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are a few minor caveats: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With buffer deletion, what you say is true for fixed memory, but not for >>>>>>>>>> TT >>>>>>>>>> memory where pages are reclaimed by the system after buffer destruction. >>>>>>>>>> That means that we don't have to wait for idle to free GPU space, but we >>>>>>>>>> need to wait before pages are handed back to the system. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Swapout needs to access the contents of evicted buffers, but >>>>>>>>>> synchronizing >>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to happen until just before swapout. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Multi-ring - CPU support: If another ring / engine or the CPU is about to >>>>>>>>>> move in buffer contents to VRAM or a GPU aperture that was previously >>>>>>>>>> evicted by another ring, it needs to sync with that eviction, but doesn't >>>>>>>>>> know what buffer or even which buffers occupied the space previously. >>>>>>>>>> Trivially one can attach a sync object to the memory type manager that >>>>>>>>>> represents the last eviction from that memory type, and *any* engine (CPU >>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>> GPU) that moves buffer contents in needs to order that movement with >>>>>>>>>> respect >>>>>>>>>> to that fence. As you say, with a single ring and no CPU fallbacks, that >>>>>>>>>> ordering is a no-op, but any common (non-driver based) implementation >>>>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>>>> to support this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A single fence attached to the memory type manager is the simplest >>>>>>>>>> solution, >>>>>>>>>> but a solution with a fence for each free region in the free list is also >>>>>>>>>> possible. Then TTM needs a driver callback to be able order fences w r t >>>>>>>>>> echother. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /Thomas >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Radeon already handle multi-ring and ttm interaction with what we call >>>>>>>>> semaphore. Semaphore are created to synchronize with fence accross >>>>>>>>> different ring. I think the easiest solution is to just remove the bo >>>>>>>>> wait in ttm and let driver handle this. >>>>>>>> The wait can be removed, but only conditioned on a driver flag that says it >>>>>>>> supports unsynchronous buffer moves. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The multi-ring case I'm talking about is: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ring 1 evicts buffer A, emits fence 0 >>>>>>>> Ring 2 evicts buffer B, emits fence 1 >>>>>>>> ..Other eviction takes place by various rings, perhaps including ring 1 and >>>>>>>> ring 2. >>>>>>>> Ring 3 moves buffer C into the space which happens bo be the union of the >>>>>>>> space prevously occupied buffer A and buffer B. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Question is: which fence do you want to order this move with? >>>>>>>> The answer is whichever of fence 0 and 1 signals last. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it's a reasonable thing for TTM to keep track of this, but in order >>>>>>>> to do so it needs a driver callback that >>>>>>>> can order two fences, and can order a job in the current ring w r t a fence. >>>>>>>> In radeon's case that driver callback >>>>>>>> would probably insert a barrier / semaphore. In the case of simpler hardware >>>>>>>> it would wait on one of the fences. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Thomas >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think we can order fence easily with a clean api, i would >>>>>>> rather see ttm provide a list of fence to driver and tell to the >>>>>>> driver before moving this object all the fence on this list need to be >>>>>>> completed. I think it's as easy as associating fence with drm_mm (well >>>>>>> nouveau as its own mm stuff) but idea would basicly be that fence are >>>>>>> both associated with bo and with mm object so you know when a segment >>>>>>> of memory is idle/available for use. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Jerome >>>>>> Hmm. Agreed that would save a lot of barriers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Even if TTM tracks fences by free mm regions or a single fence for >>>>>> the whole memory type, it's a simple fact that fences from the same >>>>>> ring are trivially ordered, which means such a list should contain at >>>>>> most as many fences as there are rings. >>>>> Yes, one function callback is needed to know which fence is necessary, >>>>> also ttm needs to know the number of rings (note that i think newer >>>>> hw will have somethings like 1024 rings or even more, even today hw >>>>> might have as many as i think nvidia channel is pretty much what i >>>>> define to be a ring). >>>>> >>>>> But i think most case will be few fence accross few rings. Like 1 >>>>> ring is the dma ring and then you have a ring for one of the GL >>>>> context that using the memory and another ring for the new context >>>>> that want to use the memory. >>>>> >>>>>> So, whatever approach is chosen, TTM needs to be able to determine >>>>>> that trivial ordering, and I think the upcoming cross-device fencing >>>>>> work will face the exact same problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> My proposed ordering API would look something like >>>>>> >>>>>> struct fence *order_fences(struct fence *fence_a, struct fence >>>>>> *fence_b, bool trivial_order, bool interruptible, bool no_wait_gpu) >>>>>> >>>>>> Returns which of the fences @fence_a and @fence_b that when >>>>>> signaled, guarantees that also the other >>>>>> fence has signaled. If @quick_order is true, and the driver cannot >>>>>> trivially order the fences, it may return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN), >>>>>> if @interruptible is true, any wait should be performed >>>>>> interruptibly and if no_wait_gpu is true, the function is not >>>>>> allowed to wait on gpu but should issue ERR_PTR(-EBUSY) if it needs >>>>>> to do so to order fences. >>>>>> >>>>>> (Hardware without semaphores can't order fences without waiting on them). >>>>>> >>>>>> The list approach you suggest would use @trivial_order = true, >>>>>> Single fence approach would use @trivial_order = false. >>>>>> >>>>>> And a first simple implementation in TTM would perhaps use your list >>>>>> approach with a single list for the whole memory type. >>>>>> >>>>>> /Thomas >>>>> I would rather add a callback like : >>>>> >>>>> ttm_reduce_fences(unsigned *nfences, fence **fencearray) >>>> I don't agree here. I think the fence order function is more >>>> versatile and a good abstraction that can be >>>> applied in a number of cases to this problem. Anyway we should sync >>>> this with Maarten and his >>>> fence work. The same problem applies to attaching shared fences to a bo. >>> Radeon already handle the bo case on multi-ring and i think it should >>> be left to the driver to do what its necessary there. >>> >>> I don't think here more versatility is bad, in fact i am pretty sure >>> that no hw can give fence ordering and i also think that if driver have >>> to track multi-ring fence ordering it will just waste resource for no >>> good reasons. For tracking that in radeon i will need to keep a list >>> of semaphore and knows which semaphores insure synchronization btw >>> which ring and for each which fence are concerned just thinking to it >>> it would be a messy graph with tons of nodes. >>> >>> Of course here i am thinking in term of newer GPU with tons of rings, >>> GPU with one ring, which are a vanishing category as newer opencl >>> require more ring, are easy to handle but i really don't think we >>> should design for those. >> The biggest problem I see with ttm_reduce_fences() is that it seems >> to have high complexity, since it >> doesn't know which fence is the new one. And if it did, it would >> only be a multi-fence version of >> order_fences(trivial=true). > I am sure all driver with multi-ring will store ring id in there fence > structure, that's from my pov a requirement. So when you get a list of > fence you first go over fence on the same ring and so far all fence > implementation use increasing sequence number for fence. So reducing > becomes as easy as only leaving the most recent fence for each of the > ring with an active fence. At the same time it could check (assuming > it's a quick operation) if fence is already signaled or not. > > For radeon this function would be very small, a simple imbricated loop > with couple test in the loop. What you describe sounds like an O(n²) complexity algorithm, whereas an algorithm based on order_fences is O(n) complexity. Thanks, Thomas
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:36:01PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > On 11/30/2012 10:07 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 09:35:49PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > >>On 11/30/2012 08:25 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >>>On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 07:31:04PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > >>>>On 11/30/2012 07:07 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >>>>>On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 06:43:36PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > >>>>>>On 11/30/2012 06:18 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >>>>>>>On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>On 11/30/2012 05:30 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >>>>>>>>>On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org> > >>>>>>>>>wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>On 11/29/2012 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>What I tried to point out was that the synchronization shouldn't be > >>>>>>>>>>>needed, because the CPU shouldn't do anything with the contents of > >>>>>>>>>>>evicted buffers. The GPU moves the buffers, not the CPU. What does the > >>>>>>>>>>>CPU do besides updating some kernel structures? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>Also, buffer deletion is something where you don't need to wait for > >>>>>>>>>>>the buffer to become idle if you know the memory area won't be > >>>>>>>>>>>mapped by the CPU, ever. The memory can be reclaimed right away. It > >>>>>>>>>>>would be the GPU to move new data in and once that happens, the old > >>>>>>>>>>>buffer will be trivially idle, because single-ring GPUs execute > >>>>>>>>>>>commands in order. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>Marek > >>>>>>>>>>Actually asynchronous eviction / deletion is something I have been > >>>>>>>>>>prototyping for a while but never gotten around to implement in TTM: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>There are a few minor caveats: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>With buffer deletion, what you say is true for fixed memory, but not for > >>>>>>>>>>TT > >>>>>>>>>>memory where pages are reclaimed by the system after buffer destruction. > >>>>>>>>>>That means that we don't have to wait for idle to free GPU space, but we > >>>>>>>>>>need to wait before pages are handed back to the system. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Swapout needs to access the contents of evicted buffers, but > >>>>>>>>>>synchronizing > >>>>>>>>>>doesn't need to happen until just before swapout. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Multi-ring - CPU support: If another ring / engine or the CPU is about to > >>>>>>>>>>move in buffer contents to VRAM or a GPU aperture that was previously > >>>>>>>>>>evicted by another ring, it needs to sync with that eviction, but doesn't > >>>>>>>>>>know what buffer or even which buffers occupied the space previously. > >>>>>>>>>>Trivially one can attach a sync object to the memory type manager that > >>>>>>>>>>represents the last eviction from that memory type, and *any* engine (CPU > >>>>>>>>>>or > >>>>>>>>>>GPU) that moves buffer contents in needs to order that movement with > >>>>>>>>>>respect > >>>>>>>>>>to that fence. As you say, with a single ring and no CPU fallbacks, that > >>>>>>>>>>ordering is a no-op, but any common (non-driver based) implementation > >>>>>>>>>>needs > >>>>>>>>>>to support this. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>A single fence attached to the memory type manager is the simplest > >>>>>>>>>>solution, > >>>>>>>>>>but a solution with a fence for each free region in the free list is also > >>>>>>>>>>possible. Then TTM needs a driver callback to be able order fences w r t > >>>>>>>>>>echother. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>/Thomas > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Radeon already handle multi-ring and ttm interaction with what we call > >>>>>>>>>semaphore. Semaphore are created to synchronize with fence accross > >>>>>>>>>different ring. I think the easiest solution is to just remove the bo > >>>>>>>>>wait in ttm and let driver handle this. > >>>>>>>>The wait can be removed, but only conditioned on a driver flag that says it > >>>>>>>>supports unsynchronous buffer moves. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>The multi-ring case I'm talking about is: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Ring 1 evicts buffer A, emits fence 0 > >>>>>>>>Ring 2 evicts buffer B, emits fence 1 > >>>>>>>>..Other eviction takes place by various rings, perhaps including ring 1 and > >>>>>>>>ring 2. > >>>>>>>>Ring 3 moves buffer C into the space which happens bo be the union of the > >>>>>>>>space prevously occupied buffer A and buffer B. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Question is: which fence do you want to order this move with? > >>>>>>>>The answer is whichever of fence 0 and 1 signals last. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I think it's a reasonable thing for TTM to keep track of this, but in order > >>>>>>>>to do so it needs a driver callback that > >>>>>>>>can order two fences, and can order a job in the current ring w r t a fence. > >>>>>>>>In radeon's case that driver callback > >>>>>>>>would probably insert a barrier / semaphore. In the case of simpler hardware > >>>>>>>>it would wait on one of the fences. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>/Thomas > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I don't think we can order fence easily with a clean api, i would > >>>>>>>rather see ttm provide a list of fence to driver and tell to the > >>>>>>>driver before moving this object all the fence on this list need to be > >>>>>>>completed. I think it's as easy as associating fence with drm_mm (well > >>>>>>>nouveau as its own mm stuff) but idea would basicly be that fence are > >>>>>>>both associated with bo and with mm object so you know when a segment > >>>>>>>of memory is idle/available for use. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Cheers, > >>>>>>>Jerome > >>>>>>Hmm. Agreed that would save a lot of barriers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Even if TTM tracks fences by free mm regions or a single fence for > >>>>>>the whole memory type, it's a simple fact that fences from the same > >>>>>>ring are trivially ordered, which means such a list should contain at > >>>>>>most as many fences as there are rings. > >>>>>Yes, one function callback is needed to know which fence is necessary, > >>>>>also ttm needs to know the number of rings (note that i think newer > >>>>>hw will have somethings like 1024 rings or even more, even today hw > >>>>>might have as many as i think nvidia channel is pretty much what i > >>>>>define to be a ring). > >>>>> > >>>>>But i think most case will be few fence accross few rings. Like 1 > >>>>>ring is the dma ring and then you have a ring for one of the GL > >>>>>context that using the memory and another ring for the new context > >>>>>that want to use the memory. > >>>>> > >>>>>>So, whatever approach is chosen, TTM needs to be able to determine > >>>>>>that trivial ordering, and I think the upcoming cross-device fencing > >>>>>>work will face the exact same problem. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>My proposed ordering API would look something like > >>>>>> > >>>>>>struct fence *order_fences(struct fence *fence_a, struct fence > >>>>>>*fence_b, bool trivial_order, bool interruptible, bool no_wait_gpu) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Returns which of the fences @fence_a and @fence_b that when > >>>>>>signaled, guarantees that also the other > >>>>>>fence has signaled. If @quick_order is true, and the driver cannot > >>>>>>trivially order the fences, it may return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN), > >>>>>>if @interruptible is true, any wait should be performed > >>>>>>interruptibly and if no_wait_gpu is true, the function is not > >>>>>>allowed to wait on gpu but should issue ERR_PTR(-EBUSY) if it needs > >>>>>>to do so to order fences. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>(Hardware without semaphores can't order fences without waiting on them). > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The list approach you suggest would use @trivial_order = true, > >>>>>>Single fence approach would use @trivial_order = false. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>And a first simple implementation in TTM would perhaps use your list > >>>>>>approach with a single list for the whole memory type. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>/Thomas > >>>>>I would rather add a callback like : > >>>>> > >>>>>ttm_reduce_fences(unsigned *nfences, fence **fencearray) > >>>>I don't agree here. I think the fence order function is more > >>>>versatile and a good abstraction that can be > >>>>applied in a number of cases to this problem. Anyway we should sync > >>>>this with Maarten and his > >>>>fence work. The same problem applies to attaching shared fences to a bo. > >>>Radeon already handle the bo case on multi-ring and i think it should > >>>be left to the driver to do what its necessary there. > >>> > >>>I don't think here more versatility is bad, in fact i am pretty sure > >>>that no hw can give fence ordering and i also think that if driver have > >>>to track multi-ring fence ordering it will just waste resource for no > >>>good reasons. For tracking that in radeon i will need to keep a list > >>>of semaphore and knows which semaphores insure synchronization btw > >>>which ring and for each which fence are concerned just thinking to it > >>>it would be a messy graph with tons of nodes. > >>> > >>>Of course here i am thinking in term of newer GPU with tons of rings, > >>>GPU with one ring, which are a vanishing category as newer opencl > >>>require more ring, are easy to handle but i really don't think we > >>>should design for those. > >>The biggest problem I see with ttm_reduce_fences() is that it seems > >>to have high complexity, since it > >>doesn't know which fence is the new one. And if it did, it would > >>only be a multi-fence version of > >>order_fences(trivial=true). > >I am sure all driver with multi-ring will store ring id in there fence > >structure, that's from my pov a requirement. So when you get a list of > >fence you first go over fence on the same ring and so far all fence > >implementation use increasing sequence number for fence. So reducing > >becomes as easy as only leaving the most recent fence for each of the > >ring with an active fence. At the same time it could check (assuming > >it's a quick operation) if fence is already signaled or not. > > > >For radeon this function would be very small, a simple imbricated loop > >with couple test in the loop. > > What you describe sounds like an O(n²) complexity algorithm, whereas > an algorithm based on order_fences is O(n) complexity. > > Thanks, Thomas Not exactly O(n²) but close in worst case, i include pseudo code below, but as i said i expect : n < 8. My point was that order_fences would never return a single fence if fence were scheduled into different rings ie it would wait (if gpu wait is allow) so making the whole let move synch into the driver pointless. As i said there is no easy way to query fence interdependency and to know which one will complete first if fence are not emited on same ring. You're approach ask the driver very early and may require the driver to do work (likely blocking one) to return a single fence. What i am suggesting is to delay the whole synchronize ring to the last minute in the bo move callback at that point i am hopping that in most case most fence will have signal and only little work will be necessary. So yes i store more fence and it require more memory, but i am pretty sure given the argument i gave that we will have a small number of fences. Pseudo reduce code : reduce(unsigned *nfences, fence **fences) { for (i = 0, lastnull = 0, c = 0; i < *nfences; i++) { if (issignaled(fences[i])) { fence_unref(fences[i]); fences[i] = NULL; } if (fences[i]) { c++; for (j = i + 1; j < *nfences; j++) { if (fences[i].ringid == fences[j].ringid) { if (isolder(fences[i], fences[j])) { fence_unref(fences[j]); fences[j] = NULL; fences[lastnull++] = fences[i]; } else { fence_unref(fences[i]); fences[i] = NULL; fences[lastnull++] = fences[j]; fences[j] = NULL; } } } } else { lastnull = i; } } *nfences = c; } I probably got the lastnull stuff wrong :) Cheers, Jerome
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c index 5ebe1b3..88722c4 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c @@ -129,11 +129,13 @@ static int radeon_init_mem_type(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev, uint32_t type, switch (type) { case TTM_PL_SYSTEM: /* System memory */ + man->minimum_residency_time_ms = 0; man->flags = TTM_MEMTYPE_FLAG_MAPPABLE; man->available_caching = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING; man->default_caching = TTM_PL_FLAG_CACHED; break; case TTM_PL_TT: + man->minimum_residency_time_ms = 0; man->func = &ttm_bo_manager_func; man->gpu_offset = rdev->mc.gtt_start; man->available_caching = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING; @@ -156,6 +158,7 @@ static int radeon_init_mem_type(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev, uint32_t type, break; case TTM_PL_VRAM: /* "On-card" video ram */ + man->minimum_residency_time_ms = 500; man->func = &ttm_bo_manager_func; man->gpu_offset = rdev->mc.vram_start; man->flags = TTM_MEMTYPE_FLAG_FIXED | diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c index 39dcc58..40476121 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c @@ -452,6 +452,7 @@ moved: bo->cur_placement = bo->mem.placement; } else bo->offset = 0; + bo->jiffies = jiffies; return 0; @@ -810,6 +811,12 @@ retry: } bo = list_first_entry(&man->lru, struct ttm_buffer_object, lru); + + if (time_after(jiffies, bo->jiffies) && jiffies_to_msecs(jiffies - bo->jiffies) >= man->minimum_residency_time_ms) { + spin_unlock(&glob->lru_lock); + return -EBUSY; + } + kref_get(&bo->list_kref); if (!list_empty(&bo->ddestroy)) { diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h index e8028ad..9e12313 100644 --- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h +++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h @@ -275,6 +275,7 @@ struct ttm_buffer_object { unsigned long offset; uint32_t cur_placement; + unsigned long jiffies; struct sg_table *sg; }; diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h index d803b92..7f60a18e6 100644 --- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h +++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h @@ -280,6 +280,7 @@ struct ttm_mem_type_manager { struct mutex io_reserve_mutex; bool use_io_reserve_lru; bool io_reserve_fastpath; + unsigned long minimum_residency_time_ms; /* * Protected by @io_reserve_mutex: