Correct, we wouldn't have synchronization between device with and
without user queues any more.
That could only be a problem for A+I Laptops.
Memory management will just work with preemption fences which pause the
user queues of a process before evicting something. That will be a
dma_fence, but also a well known approach.
Christian.
Am 27.04.21 um 13:49 schrieb Marek Olšák:
If we don't use future fences for DMA fences at all, e.g. we don't use
them for memory management, it can work, right? Memory management can
suspend user queues anytime. It doesn't need to use DMA fences. There
might be something that I'm missing here.
What would we lose without DMA fences? Just inter-device
synchronization? I think that might be acceptable.
The only case when the kernel will wait on a future fence is before a
page flip. Everything today already depends on userspace not hanging
the gpu, which makes everything a future fence.
Marek
On Tue., Apr. 27, 2021, 04:02 Daniel Vetter, <dan...@ffwll.ch
<mailto:dan...@ffwll.ch>> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 04:59:28PM -0400, Marek Olšák wrote:
> Thanks everybody. The initial proposal is dead. Here are some
thoughts on
> how to do it differently.
>
> I think we can have direct command submission from userspace via
> memory-mapped queues ("user queues") without changing window
systems.
>
> The memory management doesn't have to use GPU page faults like HMM.
> Instead, it can wait for user queues of a specific process to go
idle and
> then unmap the queues, so that userspace can't submit anything.
Buffer
> evictions, pinning, etc. can be executed when all queues are
unmapped
> (suspended). Thus, no BO fences and page faults are needed.
>
> Inter-process synchronization can use timeline semaphores.
Userspace will
> query the wait and signal value for a shared buffer from the
kernel. The
> kernel will keep a history of those queries to know which process is
> responsible for signalling which buffer. There is only the
wait-timeout
> issue and how to identify the culprit. One of the solutions is
to have the
> GPU send all GPU signal commands and all timed out wait commands
via an
> interrupt to the kernel driver to monitor and validate userspace
behavior.
> With that, it can be identified whether the culprit is the
waiting process
> or the signalling process and which one. Invalid signal/wait
parameters can
> also be detected. The kernel can force-signal only the
semaphores that time
> out, and punish the processes which caused the timeout or used
invalid
> signal/wait parameters.
>
> The question is whether this synchronization solution is robust
enough for
> dma_fence and whatever the kernel and window systems need.
The proper model here is the preempt-ctx dma_fence that amdkfd uses
(without page faults). That means dma_fence for synchronization is
doa, at
least as-is, and we're back to figuring out the winsys problem.
"We'll solve it with timeouts" is very tempting, but doesn't work.
It's
akin to saying that we're solving deadlock issues in a locking
design by
doing a global s/mutex_lock/mutex_lock_timeout/ in the kernel. Sure it
avoids having to reach the reset button, but that's about it.
And the fundamental problem is that once you throw in userspace
command
submission (and syncing, at least within the userspace driver,
otherwise
there's kinda no point if you still need the kernel for
cross-engine sync)
means you get deadlocks if you still use dma_fence for sync under
perfectly legit use-case. We've discussed that one ad nauseam last
summer:
https://dri.freedesktop.org/docs/drm/driver-api/dma-buf.html?highlight=dma_fence#indefinite-dma-fences
<https://dri.freedesktop.org/docs/drm/driver-api/dma-buf.html?highlight=dma_fence#indefinite-dma-fences>
See silly diagramm at the bottom.
Now I think all isn't lost, because imo the first step to getting
to this
brave new world is rebuilding the driver on top of userspace
fences, and
with the adjusted cmd submit model. You probably don't want to use
amdkfd,
but port that as a context flag or similar to render nodes for
gl/vk. Of
course that means you can only use this mode in headless, without
glx/wayland winsys support, but it's a start.
-Daniel
>
> Marek
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 4:34 PM Daniel Stone
<dan...@fooishbar.org <mailto:dan...@fooishbar.org>> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 20:30, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch
<mailto:dan...@ffwll.ch>> wrote:
> >
> >> The thing is, you can't do this in drm/scheduler. At least
not without
> >> splitting up the dma_fence in the kernel into separate memory
fences
> >> and sync fences
> >
> >
> > I'm starting to think this thread needs its own glossary ...
> >
> > I propose we use 'residency fence' for execution fences which
enact
> > memory-residency operations, e.g. faulting in a page
ultimately depending
> > on GPU work retiring.
> >
> > And 'value fence' for the pure-userspace model suggested by
timeline
> > semaphores, i.e. fences being (*addr == val) rather than being
able to look
> > at ctx seqno.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Daniel
> > _______________________________________________
> > mesa-dev mailing list
> > mesa-...@lists.freedesktop.org
<mailto:mesa-...@lists.freedesktop.org>
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
<https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev>
> >
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch <http://blog.ffwll.ch>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-...@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
