Am 27.09.2018 um 13:08 schrieb Kuehling, Felix:
> We double check that there wasn't any page table modification while
we prepared the submission and restart the whole process when there
actually was some update.
>
> The reason why we need to do this is here:
>
> ttm_eu_fence_buffer_objects(&p->ticket, &p->validated, p->fence);
> amdgpu_mn_unlock(p->mn);
>
> Only after the new fence is added to the buffer object we can
release the lock so that any invalidation will now block on our
command submission to finish before it modifies the page table.
I don’t see why this requires holding the read-lock until
invalidate_range_end. amdgpu_ttm_tt_affect_userptr gets called while
the mn read-lock is held in invalidate_range_start notifier.
That's not related to amdgpu_ttm_tt_affect_userptr(), this function
could actually be called outside the lock.
The problem is here:
ttm_eu_fence_buffer_objects(&p->ticket, &p->validated, p->fence);
amdgpu_mn_unlock(p->mn);
We need to hold the lock until the fence is added to the reservation object.
Otherwise somebody could have changed the page tables just in the moment
between the check of amdgpu_ttm_tt_userptr_needs_pages() and adding the
fence to the reservation object.
Regards,
Christian.
Regards,
Felix
*From:*Koenig, Christian
*Sent:* Thursday, September 27, 2018 5:27 AM
*To:* Kuehling, Felix <felix.kuehl...@amd.com>
*Cc:* Yang, Philip <philip.y...@amd.com>;
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Jerome Glisse <j.gli...@gmail.com>
*Subject:* Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: use HMM mirror callback to replace
mmu notifier v4
That is correct, but take a look what we do when after calling the
amdgpu_mn_read_lock():
/* No memory allocation is allowed while holding the mn
lock */
amdgpu_mn_lock(p->mn);
amdgpu_bo_list_for_each_userptr_entry(e, p->bo_list) {
struct amdgpu_bo *bo = ttm_to_amdgpu_bo(e->tv.bo);
if (amdgpu_ttm_tt_userptr_needs_pages(bo->tbo.ttm)) {
r = -ERESTARTSYS;
goto error_abort;
}
}
We double check that there wasn't any page table modification while we
prepared the submission and restart the whole process when there
actually was some update.
The reason why we need to do this is here:
ttm_eu_fence_buffer_objects(&p->ticket, &p->validated, p->fence);
amdgpu_mn_unlock(p->mn);
Only after the new fence is added to the buffer object we can release
the lock so that any invalidation will now block on our command
submission to finish before it modifies the page table.
The only other option would be to add the fence first and then check
if there was any update to the page tables.
The issue with that approach is that adding a fence can't be made
undone, so if we find that there actually was an update to the page
tables we would need to somehow turn the CS into a dummy (e.g.
overwrite all IBs with NOPs or something like that) and still submit it.
Not sure if that is actually possible.
Regards,
Christian.
Am 27.09.2018 um 10:47 schrieb Kuehling, Felix:
So back to my previous question:
>> But do we really need another lock for this? Wouldn't the
>> re-validation of userptr BOs (currently calling get_user_pages)
force
>> synchronization with the ongoing page table invalidation
through the
>> mmap_sem or other MM locks?
>
> No and yes. We don't hold any other locks while doing command
submission, but I expect that HMM has its own mechanism to prevent
that.
>
> Since we don't modify amdgpu_mn_lock()/amdgpu_mn_unlock() we are
certainly not using this mechanism correctly.
The existing amdgpu_mn_lock/unlock should block the MMU notifier
while a command submission is in progress. It should also block
command submission while an MMU notifier is in progress.
What we lose with HMM is the ability to hold a read-lock for the
entire duration of the invalidate_range_start until
invalidate_range_end. As I understand it, that lock is meant to
prevent new command submissions while the page tables are being
updated by the kernel. But my point is, that get_user_pages or
hmm_vma_fault should do the same kind of thing. Before the command
submission can go ahead, it needs to update the userptr addresses.
If the page tables are still being updated, it will block there
even without holding the amdgpu_mn_read_lock.
Regards,
Felix
*From:* Koenig, Christian
*Sent:* Thursday, September 27, 2018 3:00 AM
*To:* Kuehling, Felix <felix.kuehl...@amd.com>
<mailto:felix.kuehl...@amd.com>
*Cc:* Yang, Philip <philip.y...@amd.com>
<mailto:philip.y...@amd.com>; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
<mailto:amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Jerome Glisse
<j.gli...@gmail.com> <mailto:j.gli...@gmail.com>
*Subject:* RE: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: use HMM mirror callback to
replace mmu notifier v4
No, that won't work. We would still run into lock inversion problems.
What we could do with the scheduler is to turn submissions into
dummies if we find that the page tables are now outdated.
But that would be really hacky and I'm not sure if that would
really work in all cases.
Christian.
Am 27.09.2018 08:53 schrieb "Kuehling, Felix"
<felix.kuehl...@amd.com <mailto:felix.kuehl...@amd.com>>:
I had a chat with Jerome yesterday. He pointed out that the new
blockable parameter can be used to infer whether the MMU notifier
is being called in a reclaim operation. So if blockable==true, it
should even be safe to take the BO reservation lock without
problems. I think with that we should be able to remove the
read-write locking completely and go back to locking (or
try-locking for blockable==false) the reservation locks in the MMU
notifier?
Regards,
Felix
-----Original Message-----
From: amd-gfx <amd-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org
<mailto:amd-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org>> On Behalf Of
Christian König
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2018 3:47 AM
To: Kuehling, Felix <felix.kuehl...@amd.com
<mailto:felix.kuehl...@amd.com>>; Yang, Philip
<philip.y...@amd.com <mailto:philip.y...@amd.com>>;
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
<mailto:amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Jerome Glisse
<j.gli...@gmail.com <mailto:j.gli...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: use HMM mirror callback to
replace mmu notifier v4
Am 14.09.2018 um 22:21 schrieb Felix Kuehling:
> On 2018-09-14 01:52 PM, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 14.09.2018 um 19:47 schrieb Philip Yang:
>>> On 2018-09-14 03:51 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>> Am 13.09.2018 um 23:51 schrieb Felix Kuehling:
>>>>> On 2018-09-13 04:52 PM, Philip Yang wrote:
>>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>>> + amdgpu_mn_read_unlock(amn);
>>>>>> +
>>>>> amdgpu_mn_read_lock/unlock support recursive locking for
multiple
>>>>> overlapping or nested invalidation ranges. But if you'r locking
>>>>> and unlocking in the same function. Is that still a concern?
>>> I don't understand the possible recursive case, but
>>> amdgpu_mn_read_lock() still support recursive locking.
>>>> Well the real problem is that unlocking them here won't work.
>>>>
>>>> We need to hold the lock until we are sure that the operation
which
>>>> updates the page tables is completed.
>>>>
>>> The reason for this change is because hmm mirror has
>>> invalidate_start callback, no invalidate_end callback
>>>
>>> Check mmu_notifier.c and hmm.c again, below is entire logic to
>>> update CPU page tables and callback:
>>>
>>> mn lock amn->lock is used to protect interval tree access because
>>> user may submit/register new userptr anytime.
>>> This is same for old and new way.
>>>
>>> step 2 guarantee the GPU operation is done before updating CPU
page
>>> table.
>>>
>>> So I think the change is safe. We don't need hold mn lock
until the
>>> CPU page tables update is completed.
>> No, that isn't even remotely correct. The lock doesn't protects
the
>> interval tree.
>>
>>> Old:
>>> 1. down_read_non_owner(&amn->lock)
>>> 2. loop to handle BOs from node->bos through interval tree
>>> amn->object nodes
>>> gfx: wait for pending BOs fence operation done, mark user
>>> pages dirty
>>> kfd: evict user queues of the process, wait for queue
>>> unmap/map operation done
>>> 3. update CPU page tables
>>> 4. up_read(&amn->lock)
>>>
>>> New, switch step 3 and 4
>>> 1. down_read_non_owner(&amn->lock)
>>> 2. loop to handle BOs from node->bos through interval tree
>>> amn->object nodes
>>> gfx: wait for pending BOs fence operation done, mark user
>>> pages dirty
>>> kfd: evict user queues of the process, wait for queue
>>> unmap/map operation done
>>> 3. up_read(&amn->lock)
>>> 4. update CPU page tables
>> The lock is there to make sure that we serialize page table
updates
>> with command submission.
> As I understand it, the idea is to prevent command submission
(adding
> new fences to BOs) while a page table invalidation is in progress.
Yes, exactly.
> But do we really need another lock for this? Wouldn't the
> re-validation of userptr BOs (currently calling get_user_pages)
force
> synchronization with the ongoing page table invalidation through
the
> mmap_sem or other MM locks?
No and yes. We don't hold any other locks while doing command
submission, but I expect that HMM has its own mechanism to prevent
that.
Since we don't modify amdgpu_mn_lock()/amdgpu_mn_unlock() we are
certainly not using this mechanism correctly.
Regards,
Christian.
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org <mailto:amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
