| Message ID | 1390309482-17313-2-git-send-email-maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, I seem to recall we have this discussion before? IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to hold to determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty thing to build in. /Thomas On 01/21/2014 02:04 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Apart from some code inside ttm itself and nouveau_bo_vma_del, > this is the only place where ttm_bo_wait is used without a reservation. > Fix this so we can remove the fence_lock later on. > > Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c > index 78a27f8ad7d9..24e9c58da8aa 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c > @@ -894,17 +894,31 @@ nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > struct drm_gem_object *gem; > struct nouveau_bo *nvbo; > bool no_wait = !!(req->flags & NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP_NOWAIT); > - int ret = -EINVAL; > + int ret; > + struct nouveau_fence *fence = NULL; > > gem = drm_gem_object_lookup(dev, file_priv, req->handle); > if (!gem) > return -ENOENT; > nvbo = nouveau_gem_object(gem); > > - spin_lock(&nvbo->bo.bdev->fence_lock); > - ret = ttm_bo_wait(&nvbo->bo, true, true, no_wait); > - spin_unlock(&nvbo->bo.bdev->fence_lock); > + ret = ttm_bo_reserve(&nvbo->bo, true, false, false, 0); > + if (!ret) { > + spin_lock(&nvbo->bo.bdev->fence_lock); > + ret = ttm_bo_wait(&nvbo->bo, true, true, true); > + if (!no_wait && ret) > + fence = nouveau_fence_ref(nvbo->bo.sync_obj); > + spin_unlock(&nvbo->bo.bdev->fence_lock); > + > + ttm_bo_unreserve(&nvbo->bo); > + } > drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked(gem); > + > + if (fence) { > + ret = nouveau_fence_wait(fence, true, no_wait); > + nouveau_fence_unref(&fence); > + } > + > return ret; > } >
Hey, op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, > > I seem to recall we have this discussion before? > IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to hold to > determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty thing to build in. > I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't end up being heavyweight. Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I just fixed up the few places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. Converting the few places that didn't ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. If a tryreserve fails it's a good indication that the buffer is NOT idle, no need to check the fences too in that case. I ended up converting this so I could use shared/exclusive fence slots internally in nouveau, allowing multiple readers to access the buffers in parallel. See commit "drm/nouveau: first stab at using shared fences for readable objects" at http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~mlankhorst/linux/log/ But doing this required killing fence_lock. ~Maarten
On 01/21/2014 04:29 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Hey, > > op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >> Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, >> >> I seem to recall we have this discussion before? >> IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to hold to >> determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty thing to >> build in. >> > I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't end up > being heavyweight. > Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I just > fixed up the few > places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. Converting the > few places that didn't > ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. Actually the only *valid* reason for holding a reservation when waiting for idle is 1) You want to block further command submission on the buffer. 2) You want to switch GPU engine and don't have access to gpu semaphores / barriers. Reservation has the nasty side effect that it blocks command submission and pins the buffer (in addition now makes the evict list traversals skip the buffer) which in general is *not* necessary for most wait cases, so we should instead actually convert the wait cases that don't fulfill 1) and 2) above in the other direction if we have performance and latency-reduction in mind. I can't see how a spinlock protecting a fence pointer or fence list is stopping you from using RW fences as long as the spinlock is held while manipulating the fence list? /Thomas
op 21-01-14 18:44, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > On 01/21/2014 04:29 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> Hey, >> >> op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>> Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, >>> >>> I seem to recall we have this discussion before? >>> IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to hold to >>> determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty thing to >>> build in. >>> >> I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't end up >> being heavyweight. >> Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I just >> fixed up the few >> places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. Converting the >> few places that didn't >> ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. > Actually the only *valid* reason for holding a reservation when waiting > for idle is > 1) You want to block further command submission on the buffer. > 2) You want to switch GPU engine and don't have access to gpu semaphores > / barriers. > > Reservation has the nasty side effect that it blocks command submission > and pins the buffer (in addition now makes the evict list traversals > skip the buffer) which in general is *not* necessary for most wait > cases, so we should instead actually convert the wait cases that don't > fulfill 1) and 2) above in the other direction if we have performance > and latency-reduction in mind. I can't see how a spinlock protecting a > fence pointer or fence list is stopping you from using RW fences as long > as the spinlock is held while manipulating the fence list? > You wish. Fine I'll enumerate all cases of ttm_bo_wait (with the patchset, though) and enumerate if they can be changed to work without reservation or not. ttm/ttm_bo.c ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_or_queue: needs reservation and ttm_bo_wait to finish for the direct destroy fastpath, if either fails it needs to be queued. Cannot work without reservation. ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock: already drops reservation to wait, doesn't need to re-acquire. Simply reordering ttm_bo_wait until after re-reserve is enough. ttm_bo_evict: already has the reservation, cannot be dropped since only trylock is allowed. Dropping reservation would cause badness, cannot be converted. ttm_bo_move_buffer: called from ttm_bo_validate, cannot drop reservation for same reason as ttm_bo_evict. It might be part of a ticketed reservation so really don't drop lock here. ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab: the wait could be converted to be done afterwards, without fence_lock. But in this case reservation could take the role of fence_lock too, so no separate fence_lock would be needed. ttm_bo_swapout: see ttm_bo_evict. ttm/ttm_bo_util.c: ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup: calls ttm_bo_wait, cannot drop lock, see ttm_bo_move_buffer, can be called from that function. ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle: I guess you COULD drop the reservation here, but you already had the reservation, so a similar optimization to ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab could be done without requiring fence_lock. If you would write it like that, you would end up with a patch similar to drm/nouveau: add reservation to nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep. I think we should do this, an Ok, so the core does NOT need fence_lock because we can never drop reservations except in synccpu_write_grab and maybe ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle, but even in those cases reservation is done. So that could be used instead of fence_lock. nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep: Either block on a global spinlock or a local reservation lock. Doesn't matter much which, I don't need the need to keep a global lock for this function... 2 cases can happen in the trylock reservation failure case: buffer is not reserved, so it's not in the process of being evicted. buffer is reserved, which means it's being used in command submission right now, or in one of the functions described above (eg not idle). nouveau_gem_pushbuf_reloc_apply: has to call ttm_bo_wait with reservation, cannot be dropped. So for core ttm and nouveau the fence_lock is never needed, radeon has only 1 function that calls ttm_bo_wait which uses a reservation too. It doesn't need the fence_lock either. ~Maarten
On 01/22/2014 09:19 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > op 21-01-14 18:44, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >> On 01/21/2014 04:29 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>> Hey, >>> >>> op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>> Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, >>>> >>>> I seem to recall we have this discussion before? >>>> IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to hold to >>>> determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty thing to >>>> build in. >>>> >>> I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't end up >>> being heavyweight. >>> Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I just >>> fixed up the few >>> places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. Converting the >>> few places that didn't >>> ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. >> Actually the only *valid* reason for holding a reservation when waiting >> for idle is >> 1) You want to block further command submission on the buffer. >> 2) You want to switch GPU engine and don't have access to gpu semaphores >> / barriers. >> >> Reservation has the nasty side effect that it blocks command submission >> and pins the buffer (in addition now makes the evict list traversals >> skip the buffer) which in general is *not* necessary for most wait >> cases, so we should instead actually convert the wait cases that don't >> fulfill 1) and 2) above in the other direction if we have performance >> and latency-reduction in mind. I can't see how a spinlock protecting a >> fence pointer or fence list is stopping you from using RW fences as long >> as the spinlock is held while manipulating the fence list? >> > You wish. Fine I'll enumerate all cases of ttm_bo_wait (with the > patchset, though) and enumerate if they can be changed to work without > reservation or not. > > ttm/ttm_bo.c > ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_or_queue: needs reservation and ttm_bo_wait to > finish for the direct destroy fastpath, if either fails it needs to be > queued. Cannot work without reservation. Doesn't block and no significant reservation contention expected. > ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock: already drops reservation to wait, > doesn't need to re-acquire. Simply reordering ttm_bo_wait until after > re-reserve is enough. Currently follows the above rules. > ttm_bo_evict: already has the reservation, cannot be dropped since > only trylock is allowed. Dropping reservation would cause badness, > cannot be converted. Follows rule 2 above. We're about to move the buffer and if that can't be pipelined using the GPU (which TTM currently doesn't allow), we need to wait. Although eviction should be low priority compared to new command submission, so I can't really see why we couldn't wait before trying to reserve here? > > ttm_bo_move_buffer: called from ttm_bo_validate, cannot drop > reservation for same reason as ttm_bo_evict. It might be part of a > ticketed reservation so really don't drop lock here. Part of command submission and as such follows rule 2 above. If we can pipeline the move with the GPU, no need to wait (but needs to be implemented, of course). > > ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab: the wait could be converted to be done > afterwards, without fence_lock. But in this case reservation could > take the role of fence_lock too, > > so no separate fence_lock would be needed. With the exception that reservation is more likely to be contended. > ttm_bo_swapout: see ttm_bo_evict. > > ttm/ttm_bo_util.c: > ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup: calls ttm_bo_wait, cannot drop lock, see > ttm_bo_move_buffer, can be called from that function. Rule 2. > > ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c > ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle: I guess you COULD drop the reservation here, but > you already had the reservation, so a similar optimization to > ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab could be done without requiring fence_lock. > If you would write it like that, you would end up with a patch similar > to drm/nouveau: add reservation to nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep. I think > we should do this, an > > Ok, so the core does NOT need fence_lock because we can never drop > reservations except in synccpu_write_grab and maybe > ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle, but even in those cases reservation is done. So > that could be used instead of fence_lock. > > nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep: > Either block on a global spinlock or a local reservation lock. Doesn't > matter much which, I don't need the need to keep a global lock for > this function... > 2 cases can happen in the trylock reservation failure case: buffer is > not reserved, so it's not in the process of being evicted. buffer is > reserved, which means it's being used in command submission right now, > or in one of the functions described above (eg not idle). > > nouveau_gem_pushbuf_reloc_apply: > has to call ttm_bo_wait with reservation, cannot be dropped. > > So for core ttm and nouveau the fence_lock is never needed, radeon has > only 1 function that calls ttm_bo_wait which uses a reservation too. > It doesn't need the fence_lock either. And vmwgfx now also has a syccpu IOCTL (see drm-next). So assuming that we converted the functions that can be converted to wait outside of reservation, the same way you have done with Nouveau, leaving the ones that fall under 1) and 2) above, I would still argue that a spinlock should be used because taking a reservation may implicitly mean wait for gpu, and could give bad performance- and latency charateristics. You shouldn't need to wait for gpu to check for buffer idle. /Thomas > > ~Maarten
op 22-01-14 10:40, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > On 01/22/2014 09:19 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> op 21-01-14 18:44, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>> On 01/21/2014 04:29 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>> Hey, >>>> >>>> op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>> Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, >>>>> >>>>> I seem to recall we have this discussion before? >>>>> IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to hold to >>>>> determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty thing to >>>>> build in. >>>>> >>>> I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't end up >>>> being heavyweight. >>>> Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I just >>>> fixed up the few >>>> places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. Converting the >>>> few places that didn't >>>> ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. >>> Actually the only *valid* reason for holding a reservation when waiting >>> for idle is >>> 1) You want to block further command submission on the buffer. >>> 2) You want to switch GPU engine and don't have access to gpu semaphores >>> / barriers. >>> >>> Reservation has the nasty side effect that it blocks command submission >>> and pins the buffer (in addition now makes the evict list traversals >>> skip the buffer) which in general is *not* necessary for most wait >>> cases, so we should instead actually convert the wait cases that don't >>> fulfill 1) and 2) above in the other direction if we have performance >>> and latency-reduction in mind. I can't see how a spinlock protecting a >>> fence pointer or fence list is stopping you from using RW fences as long >>> as the spinlock is held while manipulating the fence list? >>> >> You wish. Fine I'll enumerate all cases of ttm_bo_wait (with the >> patchset, though) and enumerate if they can be changed to work without >> reservation or not. >> >> ttm/ttm_bo.c >> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_or_queue: needs reservation and ttm_bo_wait to >> finish for the direct destroy fastpath, if either fails it needs to be >> queued. Cannot work without reservation. > Doesn't block and no significant reservation contention expected. > >> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock: already drops reservation to wait, >> doesn't need to re-acquire. Simply reordering ttm_bo_wait until after >> re-reserve is enough. > Currently follows the above rules. > >> ttm_bo_evict: already has the reservation, cannot be dropped since >> only trylock is allowed. Dropping reservation would cause badness, >> cannot be converted. > Follows rule 2 above. We're about to move the buffer and if that can't > be pipelined using the GPU (which TTM currently doesn't allow), we need > to wait. Although eviction should be low priority compared to new > command submission, so I can't really see why we couldn't wait before > trying to reserve here? > >> ttm_bo_move_buffer: called from ttm_bo_validate, cannot drop >> reservation for same reason as ttm_bo_evict. It might be part of a >> ticketed reservation so really don't drop lock here. > Part of command submission and as such follows rule 2 above. If we can > pipeline the move with the GPU, no need to wait (but needs to be > implemented, of course). > >> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab: the wait could be converted to be done >> afterwards, without fence_lock. But in this case reservation could >> take the role of fence_lock too, >> >> so no separate fence_lock would be needed. > With the exception that reservation is more likely to be contended. True but rule 1. >> ttm_bo_swapout: see ttm_bo_evict. >> >> ttm/ttm_bo_util.c: >> ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup: calls ttm_bo_wait, cannot drop lock, see >> ttm_bo_move_buffer, can be called from that function. > Rule 2. > >> ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c >> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle: I guess you COULD drop the reservation here, but >> you already had the reservation, so a similar optimization to >> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab could be done without requiring fence_lock. >> If you would write it like that, you would end up with a patch similar >> to drm/nouveau: add reservation to nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep. I think >> we should do this, an >> >> Ok, so the core does NOT need fence_lock because we can never drop >> reservations except in synccpu_write_grab and maybe >> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle, but even in those cases reservation is done. So >> that could be used instead of fence_lock. >> >> nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep: >> Either block on a global spinlock or a local reservation lock. Doesn't >> matter much which, I don't need the need to keep a global lock for >> this function... >> 2 cases can happen in the trylock reservation failure case: buffer is >> not reserved, so it's not in the process of being evicted. buffer is >> reserved, which means it's being used in command submission right now, >> or in one of the functions described above (eg not idle). >> >> nouveau_gem_pushbuf_reloc_apply: >> has to call ttm_bo_wait with reservation, cannot be dropped. >> >> So for core ttm and nouveau the fence_lock is never needed, radeon has >> only 1 function that calls ttm_bo_wait which uses a reservation too. >> It doesn't need the fence_lock either. > And vmwgfx now also has a syccpu IOCTL (see drm-next). > > So assuming that we converted the functions that can be converted to > wait outside of reservation, the same way you have done with Nouveau, > leaving the ones that fall under 1) and 2) above, I would still argue > that a spinlock should be used because taking a reservation may > implicitly mean wait for gpu, and could give bad performance- and > latency charateristics. You shouldn't need to wait for gpu to check for > buffer idle. Except that without reservation you can't tell if the buffer is really idle, or is currently being used as part of some command submission/eviction before the fence pointer is set. ~Maarten
On 01/22/2014 10:55 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > op 22-01-14 10:40, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >> On 01/22/2014 09:19 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>> op 21-01-14 18:44, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>> On 01/21/2014 04:29 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>> Hey, >>>>> >>>>> op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>> Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, >>>>>> >>>>>> I seem to recall we have this discussion before? >>>>>> IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to >>>>>> hold to >>>>>> determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty thing to >>>>>> build in. >>>>>> >>>>> I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't >>>>> end up >>>>> being heavyweight. >>>>> Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I just >>>>> fixed up the few >>>>> places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. Converting the >>>>> few places that didn't >>>>> ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. >>>> Actually the only *valid* reason for holding a reservation when >>>> waiting >>>> for idle is >>>> 1) You want to block further command submission on the buffer. >>>> 2) You want to switch GPU engine and don't have access to gpu >>>> semaphores >>>> / barriers. >>>> >>>> Reservation has the nasty side effect that it blocks command >>>> submission >>>> and pins the buffer (in addition now makes the evict list traversals >>>> skip the buffer) which in general is *not* necessary for most wait >>>> cases, so we should instead actually convert the wait cases that don't >>>> fulfill 1) and 2) above in the other direction if we have performance >>>> and latency-reduction in mind. I can't see how a spinlock protecting a >>>> fence pointer or fence list is stopping you from using RW fences as >>>> long >>>> as the spinlock is held while manipulating the fence list? >>>> >>> You wish. Fine I'll enumerate all cases of ttm_bo_wait (with the >>> patchset, though) and enumerate if they can be changed to work without >>> reservation or not. >>> >>> ttm/ttm_bo.c >>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_or_queue: needs reservation and ttm_bo_wait to >>> finish for the direct destroy fastpath, if either fails it needs to be >>> queued. Cannot work without reservation. >> Doesn't block and no significant reservation contention expected. >> >>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock: already drops reservation to wait, >>> doesn't need to re-acquire. Simply reordering ttm_bo_wait until after >>> re-reserve is enough. >> Currently follows the above rules. >> >>> ttm_bo_evict: already has the reservation, cannot be dropped since >>> only trylock is allowed. Dropping reservation would cause badness, >>> cannot be converted. >> Follows rule 2 above. We're about to move the buffer and if that can't >> be pipelined using the GPU (which TTM currently doesn't allow), we need >> to wait. Although eviction should be low priority compared to new >> command submission, so I can't really see why we couldn't wait before >> trying to reserve here? >> >>> ttm_bo_move_buffer: called from ttm_bo_validate, cannot drop >>> reservation for same reason as ttm_bo_evict. It might be part of a >>> ticketed reservation so really don't drop lock here. >> Part of command submission and as such follows rule 2 above. If we can >> pipeline the move with the GPU, no need to wait (but needs to be >> implemented, of course). >> >>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab: the wait could be converted to be done >>> afterwards, without fence_lock. But in this case reservation could >>> take the role of fence_lock too, >>> >>> so no separate fence_lock would be needed. >> With the exception that reservation is more likely to be contended. > True but rule 1. >>> ttm_bo_swapout: see ttm_bo_evict. >>> >>> ttm/ttm_bo_util.c: >>> ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup: calls ttm_bo_wait, cannot drop lock, see >>> ttm_bo_move_buffer, can be called from that function. >> Rule 2. >> >>> ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c >>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle: I guess you COULD drop the reservation here, but >>> you already had the reservation, so a similar optimization to >>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab could be done without requiring fence_lock. >>> If you would write it like that, you would end up with a patch similar >>> to drm/nouveau: add reservation to nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep. I think >>> we should do this, an >>> >>> Ok, so the core does NOT need fence_lock because we can never drop >>> reservations except in synccpu_write_grab and maybe >>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle, but even in those cases reservation is done. So >>> that could be used instead of fence_lock. >>> >>> nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep: >>> Either block on a global spinlock or a local reservation lock. Doesn't >>> matter much which, I don't need the need to keep a global lock for >>> this function... >>> 2 cases can happen in the trylock reservation failure case: buffer is >>> not reserved, so it's not in the process of being evicted. buffer is >>> reserved, which means it's being used in command submission right now, >>> or in one of the functions described above (eg not idle). >>> >>> nouveau_gem_pushbuf_reloc_apply: >>> has to call ttm_bo_wait with reservation, cannot be dropped. >>> >>> So for core ttm and nouveau the fence_lock is never needed, radeon has >>> only 1 function that calls ttm_bo_wait which uses a reservation too. >>> It doesn't need the fence_lock either. >> And vmwgfx now also has a syccpu IOCTL (see drm-next). >> >> So assuming that we converted the functions that can be converted to >> wait outside of reservation, the same way you have done with Nouveau, >> leaving the ones that fall under 1) and 2) above, I would still argue >> that a spinlock should be used because taking a reservation may >> implicitly mean wait for gpu, and could give bad performance- and >> latency charateristics. You shouldn't need to wait for gpu to check for >> buffer idle. > Except that without reservation you can't tell if the buffer is really > idle, or is currently being > used as part of some command submission/eviction before the fence > pointer is set. > Yes, but when that matters, you're either in case 1 or case 2 again. Otherwise, when you release the reservation, you still don't know. A typical example of this is the vmwgfx synccpu ioctl, where you can either choose to block command submission (not used currently) or not (user-space inter-process synchronization). The former is a case 1 wait and holds reservation while waiting for idle and then ups cpu_writers. The latter waits without reservation for previously submitted rendering to finish. /Thomas > ~Maarten >
op 22-01-14 11:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > On 01/22/2014 10:55 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> op 22-01-14 10:40, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>> On 01/22/2014 09:19 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>> op 21-01-14 18:44, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>> On 01/21/2014 04:29 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>> Hey, >>>>>> >>>>>> op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>> Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I seem to recall we have this discussion before? >>>>>>> IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to >>>>>>> hold to >>>>>>> determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty thing to >>>>>>> build in. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't >>>>>> end up >>>>>> being heavyweight. >>>>>> Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I just >>>>>> fixed up the few >>>>>> places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. Converting the >>>>>> few places that didn't >>>>>> ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. >>>>> Actually the only *valid* reason for holding a reservation when >>>>> waiting >>>>> for idle is >>>>> 1) You want to block further command submission on the buffer. >>>>> 2) You want to switch GPU engine and don't have access to gpu >>>>> semaphores >>>>> / barriers. >>>>> >>>>> Reservation has the nasty side effect that it blocks command >>>>> submission >>>>> and pins the buffer (in addition now makes the evict list traversals >>>>> skip the buffer) which in general is *not* necessary for most wait >>>>> cases, so we should instead actually convert the wait cases that don't >>>>> fulfill 1) and 2) above in the other direction if we have performance >>>>> and latency-reduction in mind. I can't see how a spinlock protecting a >>>>> fence pointer or fence list is stopping you from using RW fences as >>>>> long >>>>> as the spinlock is held while manipulating the fence list? >>>>> >>>> You wish. Fine I'll enumerate all cases of ttm_bo_wait (with the >>>> patchset, though) and enumerate if they can be changed to work without >>>> reservation or not. >>>> >>>> ttm/ttm_bo.c >>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_or_queue: needs reservation and ttm_bo_wait to >>>> finish for the direct destroy fastpath, if either fails it needs to be >>>> queued. Cannot work without reservation. >>> Doesn't block and no significant reservation contention expected. >>> >>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock: already drops reservation to wait, >>>> doesn't need to re-acquire. Simply reordering ttm_bo_wait until after >>>> re-reserve is enough. >>> Currently follows the above rules. >>> >>>> ttm_bo_evict: already has the reservation, cannot be dropped since >>>> only trylock is allowed. Dropping reservation would cause badness, >>>> cannot be converted. >>> Follows rule 2 above. We're about to move the buffer and if that can't >>> be pipelined using the GPU (which TTM currently doesn't allow), we need >>> to wait. Although eviction should be low priority compared to new >>> command submission, so I can't really see why we couldn't wait before >>> trying to reserve here? >>> >>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer: called from ttm_bo_validate, cannot drop >>>> reservation for same reason as ttm_bo_evict. It might be part of a >>>> ticketed reservation so really don't drop lock here. >>> Part of command submission and as such follows rule 2 above. If we can >>> pipeline the move with the GPU, no need to wait (but needs to be >>> implemented, of course). >>> >>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab: the wait could be converted to be done >>>> afterwards, without fence_lock. But in this case reservation could >>>> take the role of fence_lock too, >>>> >>>> so no separate fence_lock would be needed. >>> With the exception that reservation is more likely to be contended. >> True but rule 1. >>>> ttm_bo_swapout: see ttm_bo_evict. >>>> >>>> ttm/ttm_bo_util.c: >>>> ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup: calls ttm_bo_wait, cannot drop lock, see >>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer, can be called from that function. >>> Rule 2. >>> >>>> ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c >>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle: I guess you COULD drop the reservation here, but >>>> you already had the reservation, so a similar optimization to >>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab could be done without requiring fence_lock. >>>> If you would write it like that, you would end up with a patch similar >>>> to drm/nouveau: add reservation to nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep. I think >>>> we should do this, an >>>> >>>> Ok, so the core does NOT need fence_lock because we can never drop >>>> reservations except in synccpu_write_grab and maybe >>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle, but even in those cases reservation is done. So >>>> that could be used instead of fence_lock. >>>> >>>> nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep: >>>> Either block on a global spinlock or a local reservation lock. Doesn't >>>> matter much which, I don't need the need to keep a global lock for >>>> this function... >>>> 2 cases can happen in the trylock reservation failure case: buffer is >>>> not reserved, so it's not in the process of being evicted. buffer is >>>> reserved, which means it's being used in command submission right now, >>>> or in one of the functions described above (eg not idle). >>>> >>>> nouveau_gem_pushbuf_reloc_apply: >>>> has to call ttm_bo_wait with reservation, cannot be dropped. >>>> >>>> So for core ttm and nouveau the fence_lock is never needed, radeon has >>>> only 1 function that calls ttm_bo_wait which uses a reservation too. >>>> It doesn't need the fence_lock either. >>> And vmwgfx now also has a syccpu IOCTL (see drm-next). >>> >>> So assuming that we converted the functions that can be converted to >>> wait outside of reservation, the same way you have done with Nouveau, >>> leaving the ones that fall under 1) and 2) above, I would still argue >>> that a spinlock should be used because taking a reservation may >>> implicitly mean wait for gpu, and could give bad performance- and >>> latency charateristics. You shouldn't need to wait for gpu to check for >>> buffer idle. >> Except that without reservation you can't tell if the buffer is really >> idle, or is currently being >> used as part of some command submission/eviction before the fence >> pointer is set. >> > Yes, but when that matters, you're either in case 1 or case 2 again. > Otherwise, when you release the reservation, you still don't know. > A typical example of this is the vmwgfx synccpu ioctl, where you can > either choose to block command submission (not used currently) > or not (user-space inter-process synchronization). The former is a case > 1 wait and holds reservation while waiting for idle and then ups > cpu_writers. The latter waits without reservation for previously > submitted rendering to finish. Yeah you could, but what exactly are you waiting on then? If it's some specific existing rendering, I would argue that you should create an android userspace fence during command submission, or provide your own api to block on a specfic fence in userspace. If you don't then I think taking a reservation is not unreasonable. In the most common case the buffer is idle and not reserved, so it isn't contested. The actual waiting itself can be done without reservation held, by taking a reference on the fence. ~Maarten
On 01/22/2014 11:58 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > op 22-01-14 11:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >> On 01/22/2014 10:55 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>> op 22-01-14 10:40, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>> On 01/22/2014 09:19 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>> op 21-01-14 18:44, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>> On 01/21/2014 04:29 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>>> Hey, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>>> Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I seem to recall we have this discussion before? >>>>>>>> IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to >>>>>>>> hold to >>>>>>>> determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty thing to >>>>>>>> build in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't >>>>>>> end up >>>>>>> being heavyweight. >>>>>>> Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I >>>>>>> just >>>>>>> fixed up the few >>>>>>> places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. Converting the >>>>>>> few places that didn't >>>>>>> ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. >>>>>> Actually the only *valid* reason for holding a reservation when >>>>>> waiting >>>>>> for idle is >>>>>> 1) You want to block further command submission on the buffer. >>>>>> 2) You want to switch GPU engine and don't have access to gpu >>>>>> semaphores >>>>>> / barriers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Reservation has the nasty side effect that it blocks command >>>>>> submission >>>>>> and pins the buffer (in addition now makes the evict list traversals >>>>>> skip the buffer) which in general is *not* necessary for most wait >>>>>> cases, so we should instead actually convert the wait cases that >>>>>> don't >>>>>> fulfill 1) and 2) above in the other direction if we have >>>>>> performance >>>>>> and latency-reduction in mind. I can't see how a spinlock >>>>>> protecting a >>>>>> fence pointer or fence list is stopping you from using RW fences as >>>>>> long >>>>>> as the spinlock is held while manipulating the fence list? >>>>>> >>>>> You wish. Fine I'll enumerate all cases of ttm_bo_wait (with the >>>>> patchset, though) and enumerate if they can be changed to work >>>>> without >>>>> reservation or not. >>>>> >>>>> ttm/ttm_bo.c >>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_or_queue: needs reservation and ttm_bo_wait to >>>>> finish for the direct destroy fastpath, if either fails it needs >>>>> to be >>>>> queued. Cannot work without reservation. >>>> Doesn't block and no significant reservation contention expected. >>>> >>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock: already drops reservation to wait, >>>>> doesn't need to re-acquire. Simply reordering ttm_bo_wait until after >>>>> re-reserve is enough. >>>> Currently follows the above rules. >>>> >>>>> ttm_bo_evict: already has the reservation, cannot be dropped since >>>>> only trylock is allowed. Dropping reservation would cause badness, >>>>> cannot be converted. >>>> Follows rule 2 above. We're about to move the buffer and if that can't >>>> be pipelined using the GPU (which TTM currently doesn't allow), we >>>> need >>>> to wait. Although eviction should be low priority compared to new >>>> command submission, so I can't really see why we couldn't wait before >>>> trying to reserve here? >>>> >>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer: called from ttm_bo_validate, cannot drop >>>>> reservation for same reason as ttm_bo_evict. It might be part of a >>>>> ticketed reservation so really don't drop lock here. >>>> Part of command submission and as such follows rule 2 above. If we can >>>> pipeline the move with the GPU, no need to wait (but needs to be >>>> implemented, of course). >>>> >>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab: the wait could be converted to be done >>>>> afterwards, without fence_lock. But in this case reservation could >>>>> take the role of fence_lock too, >>>>> >>>>> so no separate fence_lock would be needed. >>>> With the exception that reservation is more likely to be contended. >>> True but rule 1. >>>>> ttm_bo_swapout: see ttm_bo_evict. >>>>> >>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_util.c: >>>>> ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup: calls ttm_bo_wait, cannot drop lock, see >>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer, can be called from that function. >>>> Rule 2. >>>> >>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c >>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle: I guess you COULD drop the reservation here, >>>>> but >>>>> you already had the reservation, so a similar optimization to >>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab could be done without requiring fence_lock. >>>>> If you would write it like that, you would end up with a patch >>>>> similar >>>>> to drm/nouveau: add reservation to nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep. I >>>>> think >>>>> we should do this, an >>>>> >>>>> Ok, so the core does NOT need fence_lock because we can never drop >>>>> reservations except in synccpu_write_grab and maybe >>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle, but even in those cases reservation is done. So >>>>> that could be used instead of fence_lock. >>>>> >>>>> nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep: >>>>> Either block on a global spinlock or a local reservation lock. >>>>> Doesn't >>>>> matter much which, I don't need the need to keep a global lock for >>>>> this function... >>>>> 2 cases can happen in the trylock reservation failure case: buffer is >>>>> not reserved, so it's not in the process of being evicted. buffer is >>>>> reserved, which means it's being used in command submission right >>>>> now, >>>>> or in one of the functions described above (eg not idle). >>>>> >>>>> nouveau_gem_pushbuf_reloc_apply: >>>>> has to call ttm_bo_wait with reservation, cannot be dropped. >>>>> >>>>> So for core ttm and nouveau the fence_lock is never needed, radeon >>>>> has >>>>> only 1 function that calls ttm_bo_wait which uses a reservation too. >>>>> It doesn't need the fence_lock either. >>>> And vmwgfx now also has a syccpu IOCTL (see drm-next). >>>> >>>> So assuming that we converted the functions that can be converted to >>>> wait outside of reservation, the same way you have done with Nouveau, >>>> leaving the ones that fall under 1) and 2) above, I would still argue >>>> that a spinlock should be used because taking a reservation may >>>> implicitly mean wait for gpu, and could give bad performance- and >>>> latency charateristics. You shouldn't need to wait for gpu to check >>>> for >>>> buffer idle. >>> Except that without reservation you can't tell if the buffer is really >>> idle, or is currently being >>> used as part of some command submission/eviction before the fence >>> pointer is set. >>> >> Yes, but when that matters, you're either in case 1 or case 2 again. >> Otherwise, when you release the reservation, you still don't know. >> A typical example of this is the vmwgfx synccpu ioctl, where you can >> either choose to block command submission (not used currently) >> or not (user-space inter-process synchronization). The former is a case >> 1 wait and holds reservation while waiting for idle and then ups >> cpu_writers. The latter waits without reservation for previously >> submitted rendering to finish. > Yeah you could, but what exactly are you waiting on then? If it's some > specific existing rendering, > I would argue that you should create an android userspace fence during > command submission, > or provide your own api to block on a specfic fence in userspace. > > If you don't then I think taking a reservation is not unreasonable. In > the most common case the buffer is > idle and not reserved, so it isn't contested. The actual waiting > itself can be done without reservation held, > by taking a reference on the fence. Yeah, here is where we disagree. I'm afraid people will start getting sloppy with reservations and use them to protect more stuff, and after a while they start wondering why the GPU command queue drains... Perhaps we could agree on a solution (building on one of your original ideas) where we require reservation to modify the fence pointers, and the buffer object moving flag, but the structure holding the fence pointer(s) is RCU safe, so that the pointers can be safely read under an rcu lock. People who don't care about potential reservation contention could just use the reservation lock, and clear pointers of fences that have signaled. People who do care could do a reservation trylock, and if it fails read the fence pointers under RCU. This of course means those fence objects need to be freed after an RCU grace period. /Thomas > > ~Maarten
op 22-01-14 13:11, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > On 01/22/2014 11:58 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> op 22-01-14 11:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>> On 01/22/2014 10:55 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>> op 22-01-14 10:40, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>> On 01/22/2014 09:19 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>> op 21-01-14 18:44, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>> On 01/21/2014 04:29 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>>>> Hey, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>>>> Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I seem to recall we have this discussion before? >>>>>>>>> IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to >>>>>>>>> hold to >>>>>>>>> determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty thing to >>>>>>>>> build in. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't >>>>>>>> end up >>>>>>>> being heavyweight. >>>>>>>> Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>> fixed up the few >>>>>>>> places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. Converting the >>>>>>>> few places that didn't >>>>>>>> ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. >>>>>>> Actually the only *valid* reason for holding a reservation when >>>>>>> waiting >>>>>>> for idle is >>>>>>> 1) You want to block further command submission on the buffer. >>>>>>> 2) You want to switch GPU engine and don't have access to gpu >>>>>>> semaphores >>>>>>> / barriers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reservation has the nasty side effect that it blocks command >>>>>>> submission >>>>>>> and pins the buffer (in addition now makes the evict list traversals >>>>>>> skip the buffer) which in general is *not* necessary for most wait >>>>>>> cases, so we should instead actually convert the wait cases that >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>> fulfill 1) and 2) above in the other direction if we have >>>>>>> performance >>>>>>> and latency-reduction in mind. I can't see how a spinlock >>>>>>> protecting a >>>>>>> fence pointer or fence list is stopping you from using RW fences as >>>>>>> long >>>>>>> as the spinlock is held while manipulating the fence list? >>>>>>> >>>>>> You wish. Fine I'll enumerate all cases of ttm_bo_wait (with the >>>>>> patchset, though) and enumerate if they can be changed to work >>>>>> without >>>>>> reservation or not. >>>>>> >>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo.c >>>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_or_queue: needs reservation and ttm_bo_wait to >>>>>> finish for the direct destroy fastpath, if either fails it needs >>>>>> to be >>>>>> queued. Cannot work without reservation. >>>>> Doesn't block and no significant reservation contention expected. >>>>> >>>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock: already drops reservation to wait, >>>>>> doesn't need to re-acquire. Simply reordering ttm_bo_wait until after >>>>>> re-reserve is enough. >>>>> Currently follows the above rules. >>>>> >>>>>> ttm_bo_evict: already has the reservation, cannot be dropped since >>>>>> only trylock is allowed. Dropping reservation would cause badness, >>>>>> cannot be converted. >>>>> Follows rule 2 above. We're about to move the buffer and if that can't >>>>> be pipelined using the GPU (which TTM currently doesn't allow), we >>>>> need >>>>> to wait. Although eviction should be low priority compared to new >>>>> command submission, so I can't really see why we couldn't wait before >>>>> trying to reserve here? >>>>> >>>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer: called from ttm_bo_validate, cannot drop >>>>>> reservation for same reason as ttm_bo_evict. It might be part of a >>>>>> ticketed reservation so really don't drop lock here. >>>>> Part of command submission and as such follows rule 2 above. If we can >>>>> pipeline the move with the GPU, no need to wait (but needs to be >>>>> implemented, of course). >>>>> >>>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab: the wait could be converted to be done >>>>>> afterwards, without fence_lock. But in this case reservation could >>>>>> take the role of fence_lock too, >>>>>> >>>>>> so no separate fence_lock would be needed. >>>>> With the exception that reservation is more likely to be contended. >>>> True but rule 1. >>>>>> ttm_bo_swapout: see ttm_bo_evict. >>>>>> >>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_util.c: >>>>>> ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup: calls ttm_bo_wait, cannot drop lock, see >>>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer, can be called from that function. >>>>> Rule 2. >>>>> >>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c >>>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle: I guess you COULD drop the reservation here, >>>>>> but >>>>>> you already had the reservation, so a similar optimization to >>>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab could be done without requiring fence_lock. >>>>>> If you would write it like that, you would end up with a patch >>>>>> similar >>>>>> to drm/nouveau: add reservation to nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep. I >>>>>> think >>>>>> we should do this, an >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok, so the core does NOT need fence_lock because we can never drop >>>>>> reservations except in synccpu_write_grab and maybe >>>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle, but even in those cases reservation is done. So >>>>>> that could be used instead of fence_lock. >>>>>> >>>>>> nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep: >>>>>> Either block on a global spinlock or a local reservation lock. >>>>>> Doesn't >>>>>> matter much which, I don't need the need to keep a global lock for >>>>>> this function... >>>>>> 2 cases can happen in the trylock reservation failure case: buffer is >>>>>> not reserved, so it's not in the process of being evicted. buffer is >>>>>> reserved, which means it's being used in command submission right >>>>>> now, >>>>>> or in one of the functions described above (eg not idle). >>>>>> >>>>>> nouveau_gem_pushbuf_reloc_apply: >>>>>> has to call ttm_bo_wait with reservation, cannot be dropped. >>>>>> >>>>>> So for core ttm and nouveau the fence_lock is never needed, radeon >>>>>> has >>>>>> only 1 function that calls ttm_bo_wait which uses a reservation too. >>>>>> It doesn't need the fence_lock either. >>>>> And vmwgfx now also has a syccpu IOCTL (see drm-next). >>>>> >>>>> So assuming that we converted the functions that can be converted to >>>>> wait outside of reservation, the same way you have done with Nouveau, >>>>> leaving the ones that fall under 1) and 2) above, I would still argue >>>>> that a spinlock should be used because taking a reservation may >>>>> implicitly mean wait for gpu, and could give bad performance- and >>>>> latency charateristics. You shouldn't need to wait for gpu to check >>>>> for >>>>> buffer idle. >>>> Except that without reservation you can't tell if the buffer is really >>>> idle, or is currently being >>>> used as part of some command submission/eviction before the fence >>>> pointer is set. >>>> >>> Yes, but when that matters, you're either in case 1 or case 2 again. >>> Otherwise, when you release the reservation, you still don't know. >>> A typical example of this is the vmwgfx synccpu ioctl, where you can >>> either choose to block command submission (not used currently) >>> or not (user-space inter-process synchronization). The former is a case >>> 1 wait and holds reservation while waiting for idle and then ups >>> cpu_writers. The latter waits without reservation for previously >>> submitted rendering to finish. >> Yeah you could, but what exactly are you waiting on then? If it's some >> specific existing rendering, >> I would argue that you should create an android userspace fence during >> command submission, >> or provide your own api to block on a specfic fence in userspace. >> >> If you don't then I think taking a reservation is not unreasonable. In >> the most common case the buffer is >> idle and not reserved, so it isn't contested. The actual waiting >> itself can be done without reservation held, >> by taking a reference on the fence. > Yeah, here is where we disagree. I'm afraid people will start getting > sloppy with reservations and use them to protect more stuff, and after a > while they start wondering why the GPU command queue drains... > > Perhaps we could agree on a solution (building on one of your original > ideas) where we require reservation to modify the fence pointers, and > the buffer object moving flag, but the structure holding the fence > pointer(s) is RCU safe, so that the pointers can be safely read under an > rcu lock. I think not modifying the fence pointer without reservation would be safest. I also don't think readers need the capability to clear sync_obj, this might simplify the implementation some. But my preferred option is getting rid of sync_obj completely, and move to using reservation_object->fence_shared/exclusive, like the incomplete proof of concept conversion done in nouveau. But then I do need to grab the reservation lock to touch things, because fences may be set by the i915 driver I share the reservation_object with. Alternatively could vmwgfx hold a spinlock when decrementing fence refcount instead? Then we wouldn't need this in the core, and vmwgfx could use: spin_lock(&vmw_fence_lock); fence = ACCESS_ONCE(bo->sync_obj); if (fence && !kref_get_unless_zero(&fence->ref)) fence = NULL; spin_unlock(&vmw_fence_lock); internally in that function, preserving old semantics but without unsetting sync_obj if no reservation is held. Full rcu might be slightly overkill. ~Maarten
op 22-01-14 13:11, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > On 01/22/2014 11:58 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> op 22-01-14 11:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>> On 01/22/2014 10:55 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>> op 22-01-14 10:40, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>> On 01/22/2014 09:19 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>> op 21-01-14 18:44, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>> On 01/21/2014 04:29 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>>>> Hey, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>>>> Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I seem to recall we have this discussion before? >>>>>>>>> IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to >>>>>>>>> hold to >>>>>>>>> determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty thing to >>>>>>>>> build in. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't >>>>>>>> end up >>>>>>>> being heavyweight. >>>>>>>> Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>> fixed up the few >>>>>>>> places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. Converting the >>>>>>>> few places that didn't >>>>>>>> ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. >>>>>>> Actually the only *valid* reason for holding a reservation when >>>>>>> waiting >>>>>>> for idle is >>>>>>> 1) You want to block further command submission on the buffer. >>>>>>> 2) You want to switch GPU engine and don't have access to gpu >>>>>>> semaphores >>>>>>> / barriers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reservation has the nasty side effect that it blocks command >>>>>>> submission >>>>>>> and pins the buffer (in addition now makes the evict list traversals >>>>>>> skip the buffer) which in general is *not* necessary for most wait >>>>>>> cases, so we should instead actually convert the wait cases that >>>>>>> don't >>>>>>> fulfill 1) and 2) above in the other direction if we have >>>>>>> performance >>>>>>> and latency-reduction in mind. I can't see how a spinlock >>>>>>> protecting a >>>>>>> fence pointer or fence list is stopping you from using RW fences as >>>>>>> long >>>>>>> as the spinlock is held while manipulating the fence list? >>>>>>> >>>>>> You wish. Fine I'll enumerate all cases of ttm_bo_wait (with the >>>>>> patchset, though) and enumerate if they can be changed to work >>>>>> without >>>>>> reservation or not. >>>>>> >>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo.c >>>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_or_queue: needs reservation and ttm_bo_wait to >>>>>> finish for the direct destroy fastpath, if either fails it needs >>>>>> to be >>>>>> queued. Cannot work without reservation. >>>>> Doesn't block and no significant reservation contention expected. >>>>> >>>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock: already drops reservation to wait, >>>>>> doesn't need to re-acquire. Simply reordering ttm_bo_wait until after >>>>>> re-reserve is enough. >>>>> Currently follows the above rules. >>>>> >>>>>> ttm_bo_evict: already has the reservation, cannot be dropped since >>>>>> only trylock is allowed. Dropping reservation would cause badness, >>>>>> cannot be converted. >>>>> Follows rule 2 above. We're about to move the buffer and if that can't >>>>> be pipelined using the GPU (which TTM currently doesn't allow), we >>>>> need >>>>> to wait. Although eviction should be low priority compared to new >>>>> command submission, so I can't really see why we couldn't wait before >>>>> trying to reserve here? >>>>> >>>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer: called from ttm_bo_validate, cannot drop >>>>>> reservation for same reason as ttm_bo_evict. It might be part of a >>>>>> ticketed reservation so really don't drop lock here. >>>>> Part of command submission and as such follows rule 2 above. If we can >>>>> pipeline the move with the GPU, no need to wait (but needs to be >>>>> implemented, of course). >>>>> >>>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab: the wait could be converted to be done >>>>>> afterwards, without fence_lock. But in this case reservation could >>>>>> take the role of fence_lock too, >>>>>> >>>>>> so no separate fence_lock would be needed. >>>>> With the exception that reservation is more likely to be contended. >>>> True but rule 1. >>>>>> ttm_bo_swapout: see ttm_bo_evict. >>>>>> >>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_util.c: >>>>>> ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup: calls ttm_bo_wait, cannot drop lock, see >>>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer, can be called from that function. >>>>> Rule 2. >>>>> >>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c >>>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle: I guess you COULD drop the reservation here, >>>>>> but >>>>>> you already had the reservation, so a similar optimization to >>>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab could be done without requiring fence_lock. >>>>>> If you would write it like that, you would end up with a patch >>>>>> similar >>>>>> to drm/nouveau: add reservation to nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep. I >>>>>> think >>>>>> we should do this, an >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok, so the core does NOT need fence_lock because we can never drop >>>>>> reservations except in synccpu_write_grab and maybe >>>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle, but even in those cases reservation is done. So >>>>>> that could be used instead of fence_lock. >>>>>> >>>>>> nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep: >>>>>> Either block on a global spinlock or a local reservation lock. >>>>>> Doesn't >>>>>> matter much which, I don't need the need to keep a global lock for >>>>>> this function... >>>>>> 2 cases can happen in the trylock reservation failure case: buffer is >>>>>> not reserved, so it's not in the process of being evicted. buffer is >>>>>> reserved, which means it's being used in command submission right >>>>>> now, >>>>>> or in one of the functions described above (eg not idle). >>>>>> >>>>>> nouveau_gem_pushbuf_reloc_apply: >>>>>> has to call ttm_bo_wait with reservation, cannot be dropped. >>>>>> >>>>>> So for core ttm and nouveau the fence_lock is never needed, radeon >>>>>> has >>>>>> only 1 function that calls ttm_bo_wait which uses a reservation too. >>>>>> It doesn't need the fence_lock either. >>>>> And vmwgfx now also has a syccpu IOCTL (see drm-next). >>>>> >>>>> So assuming that we converted the functions that can be converted to >>>>> wait outside of reservation, the same way you have done with Nouveau, >>>>> leaving the ones that fall under 1) and 2) above, I would still argue >>>>> that a spinlock should be used because taking a reservation may >>>>> implicitly mean wait for gpu, and could give bad performance- and >>>>> latency charateristics. You shouldn't need to wait for gpu to check >>>>> for >>>>> buffer idle. >>>> Except that without reservation you can't tell if the buffer is really >>>> idle, or is currently being >>>> used as part of some command submission/eviction before the fence >>>> pointer is set. >>>> >>> Yes, but when that matters, you're either in case 1 or case 2 again. >>> Otherwise, when you release the reservation, you still don't know. >>> A typical example of this is the vmwgfx synccpu ioctl, where you can >>> either choose to block command submission (not used currently) >>> or not (user-space inter-process synchronization). The former is a case >>> 1 wait and holds reservation while waiting for idle and then ups >>> cpu_writers. The latter waits without reservation for previously >>> submitted rendering to finish. >> Yeah you could, but what exactly are you waiting on then? If it's some >> specific existing rendering, >> I would argue that you should create an android userspace fence during >> command submission, >> or provide your own api to block on a specfic fence in userspace. >> >> If you don't then I think taking a reservation is not unreasonable. In >> the most common case the buffer is >> idle and not reserved, so it isn't contested. The actual waiting >> itself can be done without reservation held, >> by taking a reference on the fence. > Yeah, here is where we disagree. I'm afraid people will start getting > sloppy with reservations and use them to protect more stuff, and after a > while they start wondering why the GPU command queue drains... > Also the reservation_object's lock is a normal lock, so you should be able to pull info about it when enabling CONFIG_LOCKSTAT. ~Maarten
On 01/22/2014 01:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > op 22-01-14 13:11, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >> On 01/22/2014 11:58 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>> op 22-01-14 11:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>> On 01/22/2014 10:55 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>> op 22-01-14 10:40, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>> On 01/22/2014 09:19 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>>> op 21-01-14 18:44, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>>> On 01/21/2014 04:29 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hey, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>>>>> Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I seem to recall we have this discussion before? >>>>>>>>>> IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to >>>>>>>>>> hold to >>>>>>>>>> determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty >>>>>>>>>> thing to >>>>>>>>>> build in. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't >>>>>>>>> end up >>>>>>>>> being heavyweight. >>>>>>>>> Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I >>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>> fixed up the few >>>>>>>>> places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. >>>>>>>>> Converting the >>>>>>>>> few places that didn't >>>>>>>>> ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. >>>>>>>> Actually the only *valid* reason for holding a reservation when >>>>>>>> waiting >>>>>>>> for idle is >>>>>>>> 1) You want to block further command submission on the buffer. >>>>>>>> 2) You want to switch GPU engine and don't have access to gpu >>>>>>>> semaphores >>>>>>>> / barriers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Reservation has the nasty side effect that it blocks command >>>>>>>> submission >>>>>>>> and pins the buffer (in addition now makes the evict list >>>>>>>> traversals >>>>>>>> skip the buffer) which in general is *not* necessary for most wait >>>>>>>> cases, so we should instead actually convert the wait cases that >>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>> fulfill 1) and 2) above in the other direction if we have >>>>>>>> performance >>>>>>>> and latency-reduction in mind. I can't see how a spinlock >>>>>>>> protecting a >>>>>>>> fence pointer or fence list is stopping you from using RW >>>>>>>> fences as >>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>> as the spinlock is held while manipulating the fence list? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You wish. Fine I'll enumerate all cases of ttm_bo_wait (with the >>>>>>> patchset, though) and enumerate if they can be changed to work >>>>>>> without >>>>>>> reservation or not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo.c >>>>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_or_queue: needs reservation and ttm_bo_wait to >>>>>>> finish for the direct destroy fastpath, if either fails it needs >>>>>>> to be >>>>>>> queued. Cannot work without reservation. >>>>>> Doesn't block and no significant reservation contention expected. >>>>>> >>>>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock: already drops reservation to wait, >>>>>>> doesn't need to re-acquire. Simply reordering ttm_bo_wait until >>>>>>> after >>>>>>> re-reserve is enough. >>>>>> Currently follows the above rules. >>>>>> >>>>>>> ttm_bo_evict: already has the reservation, cannot be dropped since >>>>>>> only trylock is allowed. Dropping reservation would cause badness, >>>>>>> cannot be converted. >>>>>> Follows rule 2 above. We're about to move the buffer and if that >>>>>> can't >>>>>> be pipelined using the GPU (which TTM currently doesn't allow), we >>>>>> need >>>>>> to wait. Although eviction should be low priority compared to new >>>>>> command submission, so I can't really see why we couldn't wait >>>>>> before >>>>>> trying to reserve here? >>>>>> >>>>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer: called from ttm_bo_validate, cannot drop >>>>>>> reservation for same reason as ttm_bo_evict. It might be part of a >>>>>>> ticketed reservation so really don't drop lock here. >>>>>> Part of command submission and as such follows rule 2 above. If >>>>>> we can >>>>>> pipeline the move with the GPU, no need to wait (but needs to be >>>>>> implemented, of course). >>>>>> >>>>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab: the wait could be converted to be done >>>>>>> afterwards, without fence_lock. But in this case reservation could >>>>>>> take the role of fence_lock too, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so no separate fence_lock would be needed. >>>>>> With the exception that reservation is more likely to be contended. >>>>> True but rule 1. >>>>>>> ttm_bo_swapout: see ttm_bo_evict. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_util.c: >>>>>>> ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup: calls ttm_bo_wait, cannot drop lock, see >>>>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer, can be called from that function. >>>>>> Rule 2. >>>>>> >>>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c >>>>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle: I guess you COULD drop the reservation here, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> you already had the reservation, so a similar optimization to >>>>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab could be done without requiring >>>>>>> fence_lock. >>>>>>> If you would write it like that, you would end up with a patch >>>>>>> similar >>>>>>> to drm/nouveau: add reservation to nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep. I >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> we should do this, an >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok, so the core does NOT need fence_lock because we can never drop >>>>>>> reservations except in synccpu_write_grab and maybe >>>>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle, but even in those cases reservation is >>>>>>> done. So >>>>>>> that could be used instead of fence_lock. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep: >>>>>>> Either block on a global spinlock or a local reservation lock. >>>>>>> Doesn't >>>>>>> matter much which, I don't need the need to keep a global lock for >>>>>>> this function... >>>>>>> 2 cases can happen in the trylock reservation failure case: >>>>>>> buffer is >>>>>>> not reserved, so it's not in the process of being evicted. >>>>>>> buffer is >>>>>>> reserved, which means it's being used in command submission right >>>>>>> now, >>>>>>> or in one of the functions described above (eg not idle). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> nouveau_gem_pushbuf_reloc_apply: >>>>>>> has to call ttm_bo_wait with reservation, cannot be dropped. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So for core ttm and nouveau the fence_lock is never needed, radeon >>>>>>> has >>>>>>> only 1 function that calls ttm_bo_wait which uses a reservation >>>>>>> too. >>>>>>> It doesn't need the fence_lock either. >>>>>> And vmwgfx now also has a syccpu IOCTL (see drm-next). >>>>>> >>>>>> So assuming that we converted the functions that can be converted to >>>>>> wait outside of reservation, the same way you have done with >>>>>> Nouveau, >>>>>> leaving the ones that fall under 1) and 2) above, I would still >>>>>> argue >>>>>> that a spinlock should be used because taking a reservation may >>>>>> implicitly mean wait for gpu, and could give bad performance- and >>>>>> latency charateristics. You shouldn't need to wait for gpu to check >>>>>> for >>>>>> buffer idle. >>>>> Except that without reservation you can't tell if the buffer is >>>>> really >>>>> idle, or is currently being >>>>> used as part of some command submission/eviction before the fence >>>>> pointer is set. >>>>> >>>> Yes, but when that matters, you're either in case 1 or case 2 again. >>>> Otherwise, when you release the reservation, you still don't know. >>>> A typical example of this is the vmwgfx synccpu ioctl, where you can >>>> either choose to block command submission (not used currently) >>>> or not (user-space inter-process synchronization). The former is a >>>> case >>>> 1 wait and holds reservation while waiting for idle and then ups >>>> cpu_writers. The latter waits without reservation for previously >>>> submitted rendering to finish. >>> Yeah you could, but what exactly are you waiting on then? If it's some >>> specific existing rendering, >>> I would argue that you should create an android userspace fence during >>> command submission, >>> or provide your own api to block on a specfic fence in userspace. >>> >>> If you don't then I think taking a reservation is not unreasonable. In >>> the most common case the buffer is >>> idle and not reserved, so it isn't contested. The actual waiting >>> itself can be done without reservation held, >>> by taking a reference on the fence. >> Yeah, here is where we disagree. I'm afraid people will start getting >> sloppy with reservations and use them to protect more stuff, and after a >> while they start wondering why the GPU command queue drains... >> >> Perhaps we could agree on a solution (building on one of your original >> ideas) where we require reservation to modify the fence pointers, and >> the buffer object moving flag, but the structure holding the fence >> pointer(s) is RCU safe, so that the pointers can be safely read under an >> rcu lock. > I think not modifying the fence pointer without reservation would be > safest. > I also don't think readers need the capability to clear sync_obj, this > might > simplify the implementation some. > > But my preferred option is getting rid of sync_obj completely, and > move to > using reservation_object->fence_shared/exclusive, like the incomplete > proof > of concept conversion done in nouveau. But then I do need to grab the > reservation lock to touch things, because fences may be set by the > i915 driver > I share the reservation_object with. > > Alternatively could vmwgfx hold a spinlock when decrementing fence > refcount instead? > Then we wouldn't need this in the core, and vmwgfx could use: Maarten, requiring reservation to access the fence pointers really turns my gut! Being able to read them under rcu is a remedy, but something I figure would be the default and recommended thing to do. Not a vmware exception. This is about as far as I'm prepared to go. /Thomas
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 01:52:51PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > On 01/22/2014 01:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > op 22-01-14 13:11, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > >> On 01/22/2014 11:58 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >>> op 22-01-14 11:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > >>>> On 01/22/2014 10:55 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >>>>> op 22-01-14 10:40, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > >>>>>> On 01/22/2014 09:19 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >>>>>>> op 21-01-14 18:44, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > >>>>>>>> On 01/21/2014 04:29 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hey, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > >>>>>>>>>> Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I seem to recall we have this discussion before? > >>>>>>>>>> IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to > >>>>>>>>>> hold to > >>>>>>>>>> determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty > >>>>>>>>>> thing to > >>>>>>>>>> build in. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't > >>>>>>>>> end up > >>>>>>>>> being heavyweight. > >>>>>>>>> Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I > >>>>>>>>> just > >>>>>>>>> fixed up the few > >>>>>>>>> places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. > >>>>>>>>> Converting the > >>>>>>>>> few places that didn't > >>>>>>>>> ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. > >>>>>>>> Actually the only *valid* reason for holding a reservation when > >>>>>>>> waiting > >>>>>>>> for idle is > >>>>>>>> 1) You want to block further command submission on the buffer. > >>>>>>>> 2) You want to switch GPU engine and don't have access to gpu > >>>>>>>> semaphores > >>>>>>>> / barriers. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Reservation has the nasty side effect that it blocks command > >>>>>>>> submission > >>>>>>>> and pins the buffer (in addition now makes the evict list > >>>>>>>> traversals > >>>>>>>> skip the buffer) which in general is *not* necessary for most wait > >>>>>>>> cases, so we should instead actually convert the wait cases that > >>>>>>>> don't > >>>>>>>> fulfill 1) and 2) above in the other direction if we have > >>>>>>>> performance > >>>>>>>> and latency-reduction in mind. I can't see how a spinlock > >>>>>>>> protecting a > >>>>>>>> fence pointer or fence list is stopping you from using RW > >>>>>>>> fences as > >>>>>>>> long > >>>>>>>> as the spinlock is held while manipulating the fence list? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You wish. Fine I'll enumerate all cases of ttm_bo_wait (with the > >>>>>>> patchset, though) and enumerate if they can be changed to work > >>>>>>> without > >>>>>>> reservation or not. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo.c > >>>>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_or_queue: needs reservation and ttm_bo_wait to > >>>>>>> finish for the direct destroy fastpath, if either fails it needs > >>>>>>> to be > >>>>>>> queued. Cannot work without reservation. > >>>>>> Doesn't block and no significant reservation contention expected. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock: already drops reservation to wait, > >>>>>>> doesn't need to re-acquire. Simply reordering ttm_bo_wait until > >>>>>>> after > >>>>>>> re-reserve is enough. > >>>>>> Currently follows the above rules. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> ttm_bo_evict: already has the reservation, cannot be dropped since > >>>>>>> only trylock is allowed. Dropping reservation would cause badness, > >>>>>>> cannot be converted. > >>>>>> Follows rule 2 above. We're about to move the buffer and if that > >>>>>> can't > >>>>>> be pipelined using the GPU (which TTM currently doesn't allow), we > >>>>>> need > >>>>>> to wait. Although eviction should be low priority compared to new > >>>>>> command submission, so I can't really see why we couldn't wait > >>>>>> before > >>>>>> trying to reserve here? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer: called from ttm_bo_validate, cannot drop > >>>>>>> reservation for same reason as ttm_bo_evict. It might be part of a > >>>>>>> ticketed reservation so really don't drop lock here. > >>>>>> Part of command submission and as such follows rule 2 above. If > >>>>>> we can > >>>>>> pipeline the move with the GPU, no need to wait (but needs to be > >>>>>> implemented, of course). > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab: the wait could be converted to be done > >>>>>>> afterwards, without fence_lock. But in this case reservation could > >>>>>>> take the role of fence_lock too, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> so no separate fence_lock would be needed. > >>>>>> With the exception that reservation is more likely to be contended. > >>>>> True but rule 1. > >>>>>>> ttm_bo_swapout: see ttm_bo_evict. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_util.c: > >>>>>>> ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup: calls ttm_bo_wait, cannot drop lock, see > >>>>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer, can be called from that function. > >>>>>> Rule 2. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c > >>>>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle: I guess you COULD drop the reservation here, > >>>>>>> but > >>>>>>> you already had the reservation, so a similar optimization to > >>>>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab could be done without requiring > >>>>>>> fence_lock. > >>>>>>> If you would write it like that, you would end up with a patch > >>>>>>> similar > >>>>>>> to drm/nouveau: add reservation to nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep. I > >>>>>>> think > >>>>>>> we should do this, an > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ok, so the core does NOT need fence_lock because we can never drop > >>>>>>> reservations except in synccpu_write_grab and maybe > >>>>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle, but even in those cases reservation is > >>>>>>> done. So > >>>>>>> that could be used instead of fence_lock. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep: > >>>>>>> Either block on a global spinlock or a local reservation lock. > >>>>>>> Doesn't > >>>>>>> matter much which, I don't need the need to keep a global lock for > >>>>>>> this function... > >>>>>>> 2 cases can happen in the trylock reservation failure case: > >>>>>>> buffer is > >>>>>>> not reserved, so it's not in the process of being evicted. > >>>>>>> buffer is > >>>>>>> reserved, which means it's being used in command submission right > >>>>>>> now, > >>>>>>> or in one of the functions described above (eg not idle). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> nouveau_gem_pushbuf_reloc_apply: > >>>>>>> has to call ttm_bo_wait with reservation, cannot be dropped. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So for core ttm and nouveau the fence_lock is never needed, radeon > >>>>>>> has > >>>>>>> only 1 function that calls ttm_bo_wait which uses a reservation > >>>>>>> too. > >>>>>>> It doesn't need the fence_lock either. > >>>>>> And vmwgfx now also has a syccpu IOCTL (see drm-next). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So assuming that we converted the functions that can be converted to > >>>>>> wait outside of reservation, the same way you have done with > >>>>>> Nouveau, > >>>>>> leaving the ones that fall under 1) and 2) above, I would still > >>>>>> argue > >>>>>> that a spinlock should be used because taking a reservation may > >>>>>> implicitly mean wait for gpu, and could give bad performance- and > >>>>>> latency charateristics. You shouldn't need to wait for gpu to check > >>>>>> for > >>>>>> buffer idle. > >>>>> Except that without reservation you can't tell if the buffer is > >>>>> really > >>>>> idle, or is currently being > >>>>> used as part of some command submission/eviction before the fence > >>>>> pointer is set. > >>>>> > >>>> Yes, but when that matters, you're either in case 1 or case 2 again. > >>>> Otherwise, when you release the reservation, you still don't know. > >>>> A typical example of this is the vmwgfx synccpu ioctl, where you can > >>>> either choose to block command submission (not used currently) > >>>> or not (user-space inter-process synchronization). The former is a > >>>> case > >>>> 1 wait and holds reservation while waiting for idle and then ups > >>>> cpu_writers. The latter waits without reservation for previously > >>>> submitted rendering to finish. > >>> Yeah you could, but what exactly are you waiting on then? If it's some > >>> specific existing rendering, > >>> I would argue that you should create an android userspace fence during > >>> command submission, > >>> or provide your own api to block on a specfic fence in userspace. > >>> > >>> If you don't then I think taking a reservation is not unreasonable. In > >>> the most common case the buffer is > >>> idle and not reserved, so it isn't contested. The actual waiting > >>> itself can be done without reservation held, > >>> by taking a reference on the fence. > >> Yeah, here is where we disagree. I'm afraid people will start getting > >> sloppy with reservations and use them to protect more stuff, and after a > >> while they start wondering why the GPU command queue drains... > >> > >> Perhaps we could agree on a solution (building on one of your original > >> ideas) where we require reservation to modify the fence pointers, and > >> the buffer object moving flag, but the structure holding the fence > >> pointer(s) is RCU safe, so that the pointers can be safely read under an > >> rcu lock. > > I think not modifying the fence pointer without reservation would be > > safest. > > I also don't think readers need the capability to clear sync_obj, this > > might > > simplify the implementation some. > > > > But my preferred option is getting rid of sync_obj completely, and > > move to > > using reservation_object->fence_shared/exclusive, like the incomplete > > proof > > of concept conversion done in nouveau. But then I do need to grab the > > reservation lock to touch things, because fences may be set by the > > i915 driver > > I share the reservation_object with. > > > > Alternatively could vmwgfx hold a spinlock when decrementing fence > > refcount instead? > > Then we wouldn't need this in the core, and vmwgfx could use: > > Maarten, > requiring reservation to access the fence pointers really turns my gut! > Being able to read them under rcu is a remedy, but something I figure > would be the default and recommended thing to do. Not a vmware > exception. This is about as far as I'm prepared to go. Let me jump into your discussion and have a bit of fun too ;-) More seriously I think we should take a step back and look at the larger picture: The overall aim is to allow cross-device shared dma-bufs to get fenced/reserved/whatever. Which means the per-device fence_lock ttm is currently using won't work any more. So we need to change things a bit. I see a few solutions. Note that I haven't checked the implications for existing drivers (especially ttm) in detail, so please correct me when some of these ideas are horrible to implement: - Make fence_lock a global thing instead of per-device. Probably not what we want given that dma-buf (and also all the ttm state) has more fine-grained locking. - Remove the fence_lock and protect fences with the reservation lock the dma-buf already has. Has the appeal of being the simplest solution, at least if we exclude the One Lock to Rule Them all approach ;-) - Add a new per-buffer spinlock just to protect the fences. Could end up being rather costly for the non-contended common case where we just want to push tons of buffers through execbuf ioctls. - Allow fences attached to dma-bufs to be accessed read-only (to grab references of them and wait on them) using rcu as protection. I think we need some trickery with kref_get_unless_zero to make sure the rcu-delayed freeing of fences doesn't race in bad ways with lockless kref_gets. Another approach would be to rcu-delay all kref_puts, but I don't think we want that. Personally I prefer the 2nd approach since it's the simplest, while not being un-scalable like the first. In my experience with the single lock in i915 where any contention and especially any waiting while holding locks is massively exagerated is that locking dropping games around the common gpu wait points are sufficient. Actually in almost all case the fence_lock wouldn't be sufficient for us since we need to check buffer placement, mmaps and similar things anyway. Now I see that there's valid cases where we want the lowest possible overhead for waiting on or just checking for outstanding rendering. OpenCL with it's fancy/explicit synchronization model seems to be the prime example that usually pops up. For such uses I think it's better to just directly expose fences to userspace and completely eshew any indirection through buffer objects. That leaves the issue of stalling unrelated processes when they try to look up fences when another process is heavily thrashing vram and so holds tons of reservations on non-shared objects and blocks waiting for the gpu to complete more batches. But from my cursory understanding non-UMA platforms currently (at least with the drivers we have and the memory management logic) drop off a rather steep cliff. So I fear that micro-optimizing this case is investing complexity into the wrong place. At least in i915 we've implemented quite a pile of tricks to smooth off the gtt thrashing cliff before even considering improving lock contention and lock holding times. So overall I'm heavily favouring the simple approach of just reusing the reservation ww mutex to protec fence state, but I'm definitely not rejecting more complex approaches out of hand. I just think that we should have solid data to justify the complexity. Finally if we can't reach an agreement here I guess we could duct-tape something together where ttm objects only used by a single driver are protected by the fence_lock and other, shared buffers are protected by the reservation. It won't be pretty, but the impact should be fairly contained. Especially since many paths in ttm currently grab both locks anyway, so wouldn't need any special handling. I hope this helps to move the discussion forward. Cheers, Daniel
On 01/22/2014 04:09 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 01:52:51PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >> On 01/22/2014 01:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>> op 22-01-14 13:11, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>> On 01/22/2014 11:58 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>> op 22-01-14 11:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>> On 01/22/2014 10:55 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>>> op 22-01-14 10:40, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>>> On 01/22/2014 09:19 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>>>>> op 21-01-14 18:44, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>>>>> On 01/21/2014 04:29 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hey, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>>>>>>> Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I seem to recall we have this discussion before? >>>>>>>>>>>> IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to >>>>>>>>>>>> hold to >>>>>>>>>>>> determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty >>>>>>>>>>>> thing to >>>>>>>>>>>> build in. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't >>>>>>>>>>> end up >>>>>>>>>>> being heavyweight. >>>>>>>>>>> Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I >>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>> fixed up the few >>>>>>>>>>> places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. >>>>>>>>>>> Converting the >>>>>>>>>>> few places that didn't >>>>>>>>>>> ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. >>>>>>>>>> Actually the only *valid* reason for holding a reservation when >>>>>>>>>> waiting >>>>>>>>>> for idle is >>>>>>>>>> 1) You want to block further command submission on the buffer. >>>>>>>>>> 2) You want to switch GPU engine and don't have access to gpu >>>>>>>>>> semaphores >>>>>>>>>> / barriers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Reservation has the nasty side effect that it blocks command >>>>>>>>>> submission >>>>>>>>>> and pins the buffer (in addition now makes the evict list >>>>>>>>>> traversals >>>>>>>>>> skip the buffer) which in general is *not* necessary for most wait >>>>>>>>>> cases, so we should instead actually convert the wait cases that >>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>> fulfill 1) and 2) above in the other direction if we have >>>>>>>>>> performance >>>>>>>>>> and latency-reduction in mind. I can't see how a spinlock >>>>>>>>>> protecting a >>>>>>>>>> fence pointer or fence list is stopping you from using RW >>>>>>>>>> fences as >>>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>>> as the spinlock is held while manipulating the fence list? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You wish. Fine I'll enumerate all cases of ttm_bo_wait (with the >>>>>>>>> patchset, though) and enumerate if they can be changed to work >>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>> reservation or not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo.c >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_or_queue: needs reservation and ttm_bo_wait to >>>>>>>>> finish for the direct destroy fastpath, if either fails it needs >>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>> queued. Cannot work without reservation. >>>>>>>> Doesn't block and no significant reservation contention expected. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock: already drops reservation to wait, >>>>>>>>> doesn't need to re-acquire. Simply reordering ttm_bo_wait until >>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>> re-reserve is enough. >>>>>>>> Currently follows the above rules. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_evict: already has the reservation, cannot be dropped since >>>>>>>>> only trylock is allowed. Dropping reservation would cause badness, >>>>>>>>> cannot be converted. >>>>>>>> Follows rule 2 above. We're about to move the buffer and if that >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> be pipelined using the GPU (which TTM currently doesn't allow), we >>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>> to wait. Although eviction should be low priority compared to new >>>>>>>> command submission, so I can't really see why we couldn't wait >>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>> trying to reserve here? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer: called from ttm_bo_validate, cannot drop >>>>>>>>> reservation for same reason as ttm_bo_evict. It might be part of a >>>>>>>>> ticketed reservation so really don't drop lock here. >>>>>>>> Part of command submission and as such follows rule 2 above. If >>>>>>>> we can >>>>>>>> pipeline the move with the GPU, no need to wait (but needs to be >>>>>>>> implemented, of course). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab: the wait could be converted to be done >>>>>>>>> afterwards, without fence_lock. But in this case reservation could >>>>>>>>> take the role of fence_lock too, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> so no separate fence_lock would be needed. >>>>>>>> With the exception that reservation is more likely to be contended. >>>>>>> True but rule 1. >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_swapout: see ttm_bo_evict. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_util.c: >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup: calls ttm_bo_wait, cannot drop lock, see >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer, can be called from that function. >>>>>>>> Rule 2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle: I guess you COULD drop the reservation here, >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> you already had the reservation, so a similar optimization to >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab could be done without requiring >>>>>>>>> fence_lock. >>>>>>>>> If you would write it like that, you would end up with a patch >>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>> to drm/nouveau: add reservation to nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep. I >>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>> we should do this, an >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ok, so the core does NOT need fence_lock because we can never drop >>>>>>>>> reservations except in synccpu_write_grab and maybe >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle, but even in those cases reservation is >>>>>>>>> done. So >>>>>>>>> that could be used instead of fence_lock. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep: >>>>>>>>> Either block on a global spinlock or a local reservation lock. >>>>>>>>> Doesn't >>>>>>>>> matter much which, I don't need the need to keep a global lock for >>>>>>>>> this function... >>>>>>>>> 2 cases can happen in the trylock reservation failure case: >>>>>>>>> buffer is >>>>>>>>> not reserved, so it's not in the process of being evicted. >>>>>>>>> buffer is >>>>>>>>> reserved, which means it's being used in command submission right >>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>> or in one of the functions described above (eg not idle). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> nouveau_gem_pushbuf_reloc_apply: >>>>>>>>> has to call ttm_bo_wait with reservation, cannot be dropped. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So for core ttm and nouveau the fence_lock is never needed, radeon >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>> only 1 function that calls ttm_bo_wait which uses a reservation >>>>>>>>> too. >>>>>>>>> It doesn't need the fence_lock either. >>>>>>>> And vmwgfx now also has a syccpu IOCTL (see drm-next). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So assuming that we converted the functions that can be converted to >>>>>>>> wait outside of reservation, the same way you have done with >>>>>>>> Nouveau, >>>>>>>> leaving the ones that fall under 1) and 2) above, I would still >>>>>>>> argue >>>>>>>> that a spinlock should be used because taking a reservation may >>>>>>>> implicitly mean wait for gpu, and could give bad performance- and >>>>>>>> latency charateristics. You shouldn't need to wait for gpu to check >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> buffer idle. >>>>>>> Except that without reservation you can't tell if the buffer is >>>>>>> really >>>>>>> idle, or is currently being >>>>>>> used as part of some command submission/eviction before the fence >>>>>>> pointer is set. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, but when that matters, you're either in case 1 or case 2 again. >>>>>> Otherwise, when you release the reservation, you still don't know. >>>>>> A typical example of this is the vmwgfx synccpu ioctl, where you can >>>>>> either choose to block command submission (not used currently) >>>>>> or not (user-space inter-process synchronization). The former is a >>>>>> case >>>>>> 1 wait and holds reservation while waiting for idle and then ups >>>>>> cpu_writers. The latter waits without reservation for previously >>>>>> submitted rendering to finish. >>>>> Yeah you could, but what exactly are you waiting on then? If it's some >>>>> specific existing rendering, >>>>> I would argue that you should create an android userspace fence during >>>>> command submission, >>>>> or provide your own api to block on a specfic fence in userspace. >>>>> >>>>> If you don't then I think taking a reservation is not unreasonable. In >>>>> the most common case the buffer is >>>>> idle and not reserved, so it isn't contested. The actual waiting >>>>> itself can be done without reservation held, >>>>> by taking a reference on the fence. >>>> Yeah, here is where we disagree. I'm afraid people will start getting >>>> sloppy with reservations and use them to protect more stuff, and after a >>>> while they start wondering why the GPU command queue drains... >>>> >>>> Perhaps we could agree on a solution (building on one of your original >>>> ideas) where we require reservation to modify the fence pointers, and >>>> the buffer object moving flag, but the structure holding the fence >>>> pointer(s) is RCU safe, so that the pointers can be safely read under an >>>> rcu lock. >>> I think not modifying the fence pointer without reservation would be >>> safest. >>> I also don't think readers need the capability to clear sync_obj, this >>> might >>> simplify the implementation some. >>> >>> But my preferred option is getting rid of sync_obj completely, and >>> move to >>> using reservation_object->fence_shared/exclusive, like the incomplete >>> proof >>> of concept conversion done in nouveau. But then I do need to grab the >>> reservation lock to touch things, because fences may be set by the >>> i915 driver >>> I share the reservation_object with. >>> >>> Alternatively could vmwgfx hold a spinlock when decrementing fence >>> refcount instead? >>> Then we wouldn't need this in the core, and vmwgfx could use: >> Maarten, >> requiring reservation to access the fence pointers really turns my gut! >> Being able to read them under rcu is a remedy, but something I figure >> would be the default and recommended thing to do. Not a vmware >> exception. This is about as far as I'm prepared to go. > Let me jump into your discussion and have a bit of fun too ;-) > > More seriously I think we should take a step back and look at the larger > picture: The overall aim is to allow cross-device shared dma-bufs to get > fenced/reserved/whatever. Which means the per-device fence_lock ttm is > currently using won't work any more. So we need to change things a bit. > > I see a few solutions. Note that I haven't checked the implications for > existing drivers (especially ttm) in detail, so please correct me when > some of these ideas are horrible to implement: > > - Make fence_lock a global thing instead of per-device. Probably not what > we want given that dma-buf (and also all the ttm state) has more > fine-grained locking. > > - Remove the fence_lock and protect fences with the reservation lock the > dma-buf already has. Has the appeal of being the simplest solution, at > least if we exclude the One Lock to Rule Them all approach ;-) > > - Add a new per-buffer spinlock just to protect the fences. Could end up > being rather costly for the non-contended common case where we just want > to push tons of buffers through execbuf ioctls. > > - Allow fences attached to dma-bufs to be accessed read-only (to grab > references of them and wait on them) using rcu as protection. I think we > need some trickery with kref_get_unless_zero to make sure the > rcu-delayed freeing of fences doesn't race in bad ways with lockless > kref_gets. Another approach would be to rcu-delay all kref_puts, but I > don't think we want that. > > Personally I prefer the 2nd approach since it's the simplest, while not > being un-scalable like the first. In my experience with the single lock in > i915 where any contention and especially any waiting while holding locks > is massively exagerated is that locking dropping games around the common > gpu wait points are sufficient. Actually in almost all case the fence_lock > wouldn't be sufficient for us since we need to check buffer placement, > mmaps and similar things anyway. > > Now I see that there's valid cases where we want the lowest possible > overhead for waiting on or just checking for outstanding rendering. OpenCL > with it's fancy/explicit synchronization model seems to be the prime > example that usually pops up. For such uses I think it's better to just > directly expose fences to userspace and completely eshew any indirection > through buffer objects. > > That leaves the issue of stalling unrelated processes when they try to > look up fences when another process is heavily thrashing vram and so holds > tons of reservations on non-shared objects and blocks waiting for the gpu > to complete more batches. But from my cursory understanding non-UMA > platforms currently (at least with the drivers we have and the memory > management logic) drop off a rather steep cliff. So I fear that > micro-optimizing this case is investing complexity into the wrong place. > At least in i915 we've implemented quite a pile of tricks to smooth off > the gtt thrashing cliff before even considering improving lock contention > and lock holding times. > > So overall I'm heavily favouring the simple approach of just reusing the > reservation ww mutex to protec fence state, but I'm definitely not > rejecting more complex approaches out of hand. I just think that we should > have solid data to justify the complexity. > > Finally if we can't reach an agreement here I guess we could duct-tape > something together where ttm objects only used by a single driver are > protected by the fence_lock and other, shared buffers are protected by the > reservation. It won't be pretty, but the impact should be fairly > contained. Especially since many paths in ttm currently grab both locks > anyway, so wouldn't need any special handling. > > I hope this helps to move the discussion forward. First, I think in a situation like this with radically different opinions, one needs to be prepared to compromise to move things forward. And not just on the TTM side. And I don't think making the dma-buf fence pointer structure rcu-safe is a big step that is in any way complex. If the sync_object- or fence ops don't support get_unless_zero(), we simply don't use the RCU path. Fence object exporters that do care implement those. /Thomas > > Cheers, Daniel
On 01/22/2014 04:09 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 01:52:51PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >> On 01/22/2014 01:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>> op 22-01-14 13:11, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>> On 01/22/2014 11:58 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>> op 22-01-14 11:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>> On 01/22/2014 10:55 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>>> op 22-01-14 10:40, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>>> On 01/22/2014 09:19 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>>>>> op 21-01-14 18:44, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>>>>> On 01/21/2014 04:29 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hey, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> op 21-01-14 16:17, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>>>>>>>>>> Maarten, for this and the other patches in this series, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I seem to recall we have this discussion before? >>>>>>>>>>>> IIRC I stated that reservation was a too heavy-weight lock to >>>>>>>>>>>> hold to >>>>>>>>>>>> determine whether a buffer was idle? It's a pretty nasty >>>>>>>>>>>> thing to >>>>>>>>>>>> build in. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've sent this patch after determining that this already didn't >>>>>>>>>>> end up >>>>>>>>>>> being heavyweight. >>>>>>>>>>> Most places were already using the fence_lock and reservation, I >>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>> fixed up the few >>>>>>>>>>> places that didn't hold a reservation while waiting. >>>>>>>>>>> Converting the >>>>>>>>>>> few places that didn't >>>>>>>>>>> ended up being trivial, so I thought I'd submit it. >>>>>>>>>> Actually the only *valid* reason for holding a reservation when >>>>>>>>>> waiting >>>>>>>>>> for idle is >>>>>>>>>> 1) You want to block further command submission on the buffer. >>>>>>>>>> 2) You want to switch GPU engine and don't have access to gpu >>>>>>>>>> semaphores >>>>>>>>>> / barriers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Reservation has the nasty side effect that it blocks command >>>>>>>>>> submission >>>>>>>>>> and pins the buffer (in addition now makes the evict list >>>>>>>>>> traversals >>>>>>>>>> skip the buffer) which in general is *not* necessary for most wait >>>>>>>>>> cases, so we should instead actually convert the wait cases that >>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>> fulfill 1) and 2) above in the other direction if we have >>>>>>>>>> performance >>>>>>>>>> and latency-reduction in mind. I can't see how a spinlock >>>>>>>>>> protecting a >>>>>>>>>> fence pointer or fence list is stopping you from using RW >>>>>>>>>> fences as >>>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>>> as the spinlock is held while manipulating the fence list? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You wish. Fine I'll enumerate all cases of ttm_bo_wait (with the >>>>>>>>> patchset, though) and enumerate if they can be changed to work >>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>> reservation or not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo.c >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_or_queue: needs reservation and ttm_bo_wait to >>>>>>>>> finish for the direct destroy fastpath, if either fails it needs >>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>> queued. Cannot work without reservation. >>>>>>>> Doesn't block and no significant reservation contention expected. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock: already drops reservation to wait, >>>>>>>>> doesn't need to re-acquire. Simply reordering ttm_bo_wait until >>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>> re-reserve is enough. >>>>>>>> Currently follows the above rules. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_evict: already has the reservation, cannot be dropped since >>>>>>>>> only trylock is allowed. Dropping reservation would cause badness, >>>>>>>>> cannot be converted. >>>>>>>> Follows rule 2 above. We're about to move the buffer and if that >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> be pipelined using the GPU (which TTM currently doesn't allow), we >>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>> to wait. Although eviction should be low priority compared to new >>>>>>>> command submission, so I can't really see why we couldn't wait >>>>>>>> before >>>>>>>> trying to reserve here? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer: called from ttm_bo_validate, cannot drop >>>>>>>>> reservation for same reason as ttm_bo_evict. It might be part of a >>>>>>>>> ticketed reservation so really don't drop lock here. >>>>>>>> Part of command submission and as such follows rule 2 above. If >>>>>>>> we can >>>>>>>> pipeline the move with the GPU, no need to wait (but needs to be >>>>>>>> implemented, of course). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab: the wait could be converted to be done >>>>>>>>> afterwards, without fence_lock. But in this case reservation could >>>>>>>>> take the role of fence_lock too, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> so no separate fence_lock would be needed. >>>>>>>> With the exception that reservation is more likely to be contended. >>>>>>> True but rule 1. >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_swapout: see ttm_bo_evict. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_util.c: >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup: calls ttm_bo_wait, cannot drop lock, see >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_move_buffer, can be called from that function. >>>>>>>> Rule 2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle: I guess you COULD drop the reservation here, >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> you already had the reservation, so a similar optimization to >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_synccpu_write_grab could be done without requiring >>>>>>>>> fence_lock. >>>>>>>>> If you would write it like that, you would end up with a patch >>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>> to drm/nouveau: add reservation to nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep. I >>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>> we should do this, an >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ok, so the core does NOT need fence_lock because we can never drop >>>>>>>>> reservations except in synccpu_write_grab and maybe >>>>>>>>> ttm_bo_vm_fault_idle, but even in those cases reservation is >>>>>>>>> done. So >>>>>>>>> that could be used instead of fence_lock. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep: >>>>>>>>> Either block on a global spinlock or a local reservation lock. >>>>>>>>> Doesn't >>>>>>>>> matter much which, I don't need the need to keep a global lock for >>>>>>>>> this function... >>>>>>>>> 2 cases can happen in the trylock reservation failure case: >>>>>>>>> buffer is >>>>>>>>> not reserved, so it's not in the process of being evicted. >>>>>>>>> buffer is >>>>>>>>> reserved, which means it's being used in command submission right >>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>> or in one of the functions described above (eg not idle). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> nouveau_gem_pushbuf_reloc_apply: >>>>>>>>> has to call ttm_bo_wait with reservation, cannot be dropped. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So for core ttm and nouveau the fence_lock is never needed, radeon >>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>> only 1 function that calls ttm_bo_wait which uses a reservation >>>>>>>>> too. >>>>>>>>> It doesn't need the fence_lock either. >>>>>>>> And vmwgfx now also has a syccpu IOCTL (see drm-next). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So assuming that we converted the functions that can be converted to >>>>>>>> wait outside of reservation, the same way you have done with >>>>>>>> Nouveau, >>>>>>>> leaving the ones that fall under 1) and 2) above, I would still >>>>>>>> argue >>>>>>>> that a spinlock should be used because taking a reservation may >>>>>>>> implicitly mean wait for gpu, and could give bad performance- and >>>>>>>> latency charateristics. You shouldn't need to wait for gpu to check >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> buffer idle. >>>>>>> Except that without reservation you can't tell if the buffer is >>>>>>> really >>>>>>> idle, or is currently being >>>>>>> used as part of some command submission/eviction before the fence >>>>>>> pointer is set. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, but when that matters, you're either in case 1 or case 2 again. >>>>>> Otherwise, when you release the reservation, you still don't know. >>>>>> A typical example of this is the vmwgfx synccpu ioctl, where you can >>>>>> either choose to block command submission (not used currently) >>>>>> or not (user-space inter-process synchronization). The former is a >>>>>> case >>>>>> 1 wait and holds reservation while waiting for idle and then ups >>>>>> cpu_writers. The latter waits without reservation for previously >>>>>> submitted rendering to finish. >>>>> Yeah you could, but what exactly are you waiting on then? If it's some >>>>> specific existing rendering, >>>>> I would argue that you should create an android userspace fence during >>>>> command submission, >>>>> or provide your own api to block on a specfic fence in userspace. >>>>> >>>>> If you don't then I think taking a reservation is not unreasonable. In >>>>> the most common case the buffer is >>>>> idle and not reserved, so it isn't contested. The actual waiting >>>>> itself can be done without reservation held, >>>>> by taking a reference on the fence. >>>> Yeah, here is where we disagree. I'm afraid people will start getting >>>> sloppy with reservations and use them to protect more stuff, and after a >>>> while they start wondering why the GPU command queue drains... >>>> >>>> Perhaps we could agree on a solution (building on one of your original >>>> ideas) where we require reservation to modify the fence pointers, and >>>> the buffer object moving flag, but the structure holding the fence >>>> pointer(s) is RCU safe, so that the pointers can be safely read under an >>>> rcu lock. >>> I think not modifying the fence pointer without reservation would be >>> safest. >>> I also don't think readers need the capability to clear sync_obj, this >>> might >>> simplify the implementation some. >>> >>> But my preferred option is getting rid of sync_obj completely, and >>> move to >>> using reservation_object->fence_shared/exclusive, like the incomplete >>> proof >>> of concept conversion done in nouveau. But then I do need to grab the >>> reservation lock to touch things, because fences may be set by the >>> i915 driver >>> I share the reservation_object with. >>> >>> Alternatively could vmwgfx hold a spinlock when decrementing fence >>> refcount instead? >>> Then we wouldn't need this in the core, and vmwgfx could use: >> Maarten, >> requiring reservation to access the fence pointers really turns my gut! >> Being able to read them under rcu is a remedy, but something I figure >> would be the default and recommended thing to do. Not a vmware >> exception. This is about as far as I'm prepared to go. > Let me jump into your discussion and have a bit of fun too ;-) > > More seriously I think we should take a step back and look at the larger > picture: The overall aim is to allow cross-device shared dma-bufs to get > fenced/reserved/whatever. Which means the per-device fence_lock ttm is > currently using won't work any more. So we need to change things a bit. > > I see a few solutions. Note that I haven't checked the implications for > existing drivers (especially ttm) in detail, so please correct me when > some of these ideas are horrible to implement: > > - Make fence_lock a global thing instead of per-device. Probably not what > we want given that dma-buf (and also all the ttm state) has more > fine-grained locking. > > And a short comment about this, as well. It's not necessarily so that a lock that protects a single structure with members that are used in unrelated situations will see less contention than a lock that protects single members in a huge number of structures that are used in related situations. In particular, I think (but guessing :) ) that a global spinlock protecting just the fence state of all objects will (at least initially) be the simplest solution and the solution that sees less lock contention. /Thomas
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c index 78a27f8ad7d9..24e9c58da8aa 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c @@ -894,17 +894,31 @@ nouveau_gem_ioctl_cpu_prep(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_gem_object *gem; struct nouveau_bo *nvbo; bool no_wait = !!(req->flags & NOUVEAU_GEM_CPU_PREP_NOWAIT); - int ret = -EINVAL; + int ret; + struct nouveau_fence *fence = NULL; gem = drm_gem_object_lookup(dev, file_priv, req->handle); if (!gem) return -ENOENT; nvbo = nouveau_gem_object(gem); - spin_lock(&nvbo->bo.bdev->fence_lock); - ret = ttm_bo_wait(&nvbo->bo, true, true, no_wait); - spin_unlock(&nvbo->bo.bdev->fence_lock); + ret = ttm_bo_reserve(&nvbo->bo, true, false, false, 0); + if (!ret) { + spin_lock(&nvbo->bo.bdev->fence_lock); + ret = ttm_bo_wait(&nvbo->bo, true, true, true); + if (!no_wait && ret) + fence = nouveau_fence_ref(nvbo->bo.sync_obj); + spin_unlock(&nvbo->bo.bdev->fence_lock); + + ttm_bo_unreserve(&nvbo->bo); + } drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked(gem); + + if (fence) { + ret = nouveau_fence_wait(fence, true, no_wait); + nouveau_fence_unref(&fence); + } + return ret; }
Apart from some code inside ttm itself and nouveau_bo_vma_del, this is the only place where ttm_bo_wait is used without a reservation. Fix this so we can remove the fence_lock later on. Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)