On 22/03/2018 14:34, Jeff McGee wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:28:00AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-03-22 09:22:55)
On 21/03/2018 17:26, jeff.mc...@intel.com wrote:
From: Jeff McGee <jeff.mc...@intel.com>
Force preemption uses engine reset to enforce a limit on the time
that a request targeted for preemption can block. This feature is
a requirement in automotive systems where the GPU may be shared by
clients of critically high priority and clients of low priority that
may not have been curated to be preemption friendly. There may be
more general applications of this feature. I'm sharing as an RFC to
stimulate that discussion and also to get any technical feedback
that I can before submitting to the product kernel that needs this.
I have developed the patches for ease of rebase, given that this is
for the moment considered a non-upstreamable feature. It would be
possible to refactor hangcheck to fully incorporate force preemption
as another tier of patience (or impatience) with the running request.
Sorry if it was mentioned elsewhere and I missed it - but does this work
only with stateless clients - or in other words, what would happen to
stateful clients which would be force preempted? Or the answer is we
don't care since they are misbehaving?
They get notified of being guilty for causing a gpu reset; three strikes
and they are out (banned from using the gpu) using the current rules.
This is a very blunt hammer that requires the rest of the system to be
robust; one might argue time spent making the system robust would be
better served making sure that the timer never expired in the first place
thereby eliminating the need for a forced gpu reset.
-Chris
Yes, for simplication the policy applied to force preempted contexts
is the same as for hanging contexts. It is known that this feature
should not be required in a fully curated system. It's a requirement
if end user will be alllowed to install 3rd party apps to run in the
non-critical domain.
My concern is whether it safe to call this force _preemption_, while it
is not really expected to work as preemption from the point of view of
preempted context. I may be missing some angle here, but I think a
better name would include words like maximum request duration or something.
I can see a difference between allowed maximum duration when there is
something else pending, and when it isn't, but I don't immediately see
that we should consider this distinction for any real benefit?
So should the feature just be "maximum request duration"? This would
perhaps make it just a special case of hangcheck, which ignores head
progress, or whatever we do in there.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
