On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 11:29:38AM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Andrew Chew <ac...@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am currently looking into ways to support fixed virtual address
> > allocations
> > and sparse mappings in nouveau, as a step towards supporting CUDA.
> >
> > CUDA requires that the GPU virtual address for a given buffer match the
> > CPU virtual address. Therefore, when mapping a CUDA buffer, we have to have
> > a way of specifying a particular virtual address to map to (we would ask
> > that
> > the CPU virtual address be used). Currently, as I understand it, the
> > allocator
> > implemented in nvkm/core/mm.c, used to provision virtual addresses, doesn't
> > allow for this (but it's very easy to modify the allocator slightly to allow
> > for this, which I have done locally in my experiments).
> >
> > In addition, the CUDA use case typically involves allocating a big chunk of
> > address space ahead of time as a way to reserve that chunk for future CUDA
> > use. It then maps individual buffers into that address space as needed.
> > Currently, the virtual address allocation is done during buffer mapping, so
> > in order to support these sparse mappings, it seems to me that the virtual
> > address allocation and buffer mapping need to be decoupled into separate
> > operations.
> >
> > My current strawman proposal for supporting this is to introduce two new
> > ioctls
> > DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_AS_ALLOC and DRM_IOCTL_NOUVEAU_AS_FREE, that look roughly
> > like this:
> >
> > #define NOUVEAU_AS_ALLOC_FLAGS_FIXED_OFFSET 0x1
> > struct drm_nouveau_as_alloc {
> > uint64_t pages; /* in, pages */
> > uint32_t page_size; /* in, bytes */
> > uint32_t flags; /* in */
> > uint64_t offset; /* in/out, byte address */
> > };
> >
> > struct drm_nouveau_as_free {
> > uint64_t offset; /* in, byte address */
> > };
> >
> > These ioctls just call into the allocator to allocate a range of addresses,
> > resulting in a struct nvkm_vma that tracks that allocation (or releases the
> > struct nvkm_vma back into the virtual address pool in the case of the free
> > ioctl). If NOUVEAU_AS_ALLOC_FLAGS_FIXED_OFFSET is set, offset specifies the
> > requested virtual address. Otherwise, an arbitrary address will be
> > allocated.
>
> Well, this can't just be an address space. You still need bo's, if
> this is to work with nouveau -- it has to know when to swap things in
> and out, when they're used, etc. (and/or move between VRAM and GART
> and system/swap). I suspect that your target here are the GK20A and
> GM20B chips which don't have dedicated VRAM, but the ioctl's need to
> work for everything.
>
> Would it be sufficient to extend NOUVEAU_GEM_NEW or create a
> NOUVEAU_GEM_NEW_FIXED or something? IOW, why do have to separate the
> concept of a GEM object and a VM allocation?
Well maybe something like i did for radeon. With radeon you have 2 set of
ioctl. One to create/delete bo (GEM stuff) and one to associate a virtual
address with a bo. I wanted to let the userspace decide on virtual address
of buffer precisely for the same reason CUDA do it ie to allow to map some
buffer at same address in GPU address space as in CPU address space. So far
we never really took advantage of that on radeon side.
Also on radeon you can map same bo at different virtual address in same
process (you will need different file descriptor for each mapping and you
can only submit command stream using mapping valid for the file descriptor).
Thought this is mostly usefull when sharing same bo accross different
process.
I think my radeon virtual address ioclt are nice design but other might
disagree. If you want to look at the code :
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_vm.c
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gem.c
Grep for _va (virtual address per bo) or _vm (virtual address manager per
file descriptor) function name and structure name.
On the command stream and bo eviction side everything is as usual on radeon.
So a bo can be evicted btw 2 command stream to make room for another one.
Either its mapping is invalidated or updated to point to system memory. So
most of the logic for everything else remain the same (just need to update
the multiple virtual address space).
>
> >
> > In addition to this, a way to map/unmap buffers is needed. Ordinarily, one
> > would just use DRM_IOCTL_PRIME_FD_TO_HANDLE to import and map a dmabuf into
> > gem. However, this ioctl will try to grab the virtual address range for
> > this
> > buffer, which will fail in the CUDA case since the virtual address range
> > has been reserved ahead of time. So we perhaps introduce a set of ioctls
> > to map/unmap buffers on top of an already existing virtual address
> > allocation.
>
> My suggestion above is an alternative to this, right? I think dmabufs
> tend to be used for sharing between devices. I suspect there's more
> going on here that I don't understand though -- I assume the CUDA
> use-case is similar to the HSA use-case -- being able to build up data
> structures that point to one another on the CPU and then process them
> on the GPU? Can you detail a specific use-case perhaps, including the
> interactions with the GPU and its address space?
I think you nailed it, it is really about having the same address pointing to
the same thing on both the GPU and CPU. But this is also valid and usefull for
VRAM. OpenCL 2.0 have various level of transparent address space (probably
not the term use in the spec) and the lowest level would need something like
what radeon have to work. The most advance level needs more plumbing inside
core kernel mm or inside the CPU and GPU hardware.
> Jérôme, I believe you were doing the HSA kernel implementation.
> Perhaps you'd have some feedback on this proposal?
No i did not do the HSA stuff, AMD team leaded by Oded did :)
Cheers,
Jérôme
_______________________________________________
Nouveau mailing list
Nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau
