All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	<nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org>, <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
	<rcampbell@nvidia.com>, <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	<hch@infradead.org>, <jglisse@redhat.com>, <willy@infradead.org>,
	<jgg@nvidia.com>, <peterx@redhat.com>, <hughd@google.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 07/10] mm: Device exclusive memory access
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 00:17:18 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8844f8c1-d78c-e0f9-c046-592bd75d4c07@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YKzk0ILRsyazMs2W@balbir-desktop>

On 5/25/21 4:51 AM, Balbir Singh wrote:
...
>> How beneficial is this code to nouveau users?  I see that it permits a
>> part of OpenCL to be implemented, but how useful/important is this in
>> the real world?
> 
> That is a very good question! I've not reviewed the code, but a sample
> program with the described use case would make things easy to parse.
> I suspect that is not easy to build at the moment?
> 

The cover letter says this:

This has been tested with upstream Mesa 21.1.0 and a simple OpenCL program
which checks that GPU atomic accesses to system memory are atomic. Without
this series the test fails as there is no way of write-protecting the page
mapping which results in the device clobbering CPU writes. For reference
the test is available at https://ozlabs.org/~apopple/opencl_svm_atomics/

Further testing has been performed by adding support for testing exclusive
access to the hmm-tests kselftests.

...so that seems to cover the "sample program" request, at least.

> I wonder how we co-ordinate all the work the mm is doing, page migration,
> reclaim with device exclusive access? Do we have any numbers for the worst
> case page fault latency when something is marked away for exclusive access?

CPU page fault latency is approximately "terrible", if a page is resident on
the GPU. We have to spin up a DMA engine on the GPU and have it copy the page
over the PCIe bus, after all.

> I presume for now this is anonymous memory only? SWP_DEVICE_EXCLUSIVE would

Yes, for now.

> only impact the address space of programs using the GPU. Should the exclusively
> marked range live in the unreclaimable list and recycled back to active/in-active
> to account for the fact that
> 
> 1. It is not reclaimable and reclaim will only hurt via page faults?
> 2. It ages the page correctly or at-least allows for that possibility when the
>     page is used by the GPU.

I'm not sure that that is *necessarily* something we can conclude. It depends upon
access patterns of each program. For example, a "reduction" parallel program sends
over lots of data to the GPU, and only a tiny bit of (reduced!) data comes back
to the CPU. In that case, freeing the physical page on the CPU is actually the
best decision for the OS to make (if the OS is sufficiently prescient).

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: rcampbell@nvidia.com, willy@infradead.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
	hughd@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, hch@infradead.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, bskeggs@redhat.com, jgg@nvidia.com,
	peterx@redhat.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH v9 07/10] mm: Device exclusive memory access
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 00:17:18 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8844f8c1-d78c-e0f9-c046-592bd75d4c07@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YKzk0ILRsyazMs2W@balbir-desktop>

On 5/25/21 4:51 AM, Balbir Singh wrote:
...
>> How beneficial is this code to nouveau users?  I see that it permits a
>> part of OpenCL to be implemented, but how useful/important is this in
>> the real world?
> 
> That is a very good question! I've not reviewed the code, but a sample
> program with the described use case would make things easy to parse.
> I suspect that is not easy to build at the moment?
> 

The cover letter says this:

This has been tested with upstream Mesa 21.1.0 and a simple OpenCL program
which checks that GPU atomic accesses to system memory are atomic. Without
this series the test fails as there is no way of write-protecting the page
mapping which results in the device clobbering CPU writes. For reference
the test is available at https://ozlabs.org/~apopple/opencl_svm_atomics/

Further testing has been performed by adding support for testing exclusive
access to the hmm-tests kselftests.

...so that seems to cover the "sample program" request, at least.

> I wonder how we co-ordinate all the work the mm is doing, page migration,
> reclaim with device exclusive access? Do we have any numbers for the worst
> case page fault latency when something is marked away for exclusive access?

CPU page fault latency is approximately "terrible", if a page is resident on
the GPU. We have to spin up a DMA engine on the GPU and have it copy the page
over the PCIe bus, after all.

> I presume for now this is anonymous memory only? SWP_DEVICE_EXCLUSIVE would

Yes, for now.

> only impact the address space of programs using the GPU. Should the exclusively
> marked range live in the unreclaimable list and recycled back to active/in-active
> to account for the fact that
> 
> 1. It is not reclaimable and reclaim will only hurt via page faults?
> 2. It ages the page correctly or at-least allows for that possibility when the
>     page is used by the GPU.

I'm not sure that that is *necessarily* something we can conclude. It depends upon
access patterns of each program. For example, a "reduction" parallel program sends
over lots of data to the GPU, and only a tiny bit of (reduced!) data comes back
to the CPU. In that case, freeing the physical page on the CPU is actually the
best decision for the OS to make (if the OS is sufficiently prescient).

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
_______________________________________________
Nouveau mailing list
Nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: rcampbell@nvidia.com, willy@infradead.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
	hughd@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, hch@infradead.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, jglisse@redhat.com, bskeggs@redhat.com,
	jgg@nvidia.com, peterx@redhat.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 07/10] mm: Device exclusive memory access
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 00:17:18 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8844f8c1-d78c-e0f9-c046-592bd75d4c07@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YKzk0ILRsyazMs2W@balbir-desktop>

On 5/25/21 4:51 AM, Balbir Singh wrote:
...
>> How beneficial is this code to nouveau users?  I see that it permits a
>> part of OpenCL to be implemented, but how useful/important is this in
>> the real world?
> 
> That is a very good question! I've not reviewed the code, but a sample
> program with the described use case would make things easy to parse.
> I suspect that is not easy to build at the moment?
> 

The cover letter says this:

This has been tested with upstream Mesa 21.1.0 and a simple OpenCL program
which checks that GPU atomic accesses to system memory are atomic. Without
this series the test fails as there is no way of write-protecting the page
mapping which results in the device clobbering CPU writes. For reference
the test is available at https://ozlabs.org/~apopple/opencl_svm_atomics/

Further testing has been performed by adding support for testing exclusive
access to the hmm-tests kselftests.

...so that seems to cover the "sample program" request, at least.

> I wonder how we co-ordinate all the work the mm is doing, page migration,
> reclaim with device exclusive access? Do we have any numbers for the worst
> case page fault latency when something is marked away for exclusive access?

CPU page fault latency is approximately "terrible", if a page is resident on
the GPU. We have to spin up a DMA engine on the GPU and have it copy the page
over the PCIe bus, after all.

> I presume for now this is anonymous memory only? SWP_DEVICE_EXCLUSIVE would

Yes, for now.

> only impact the address space of programs using the GPU. Should the exclusively
> marked range live in the unreclaimable list and recycled back to active/in-active
> to account for the fact that
> 
> 1. It is not reclaimable and reclaim will only hurt via page faults?
> 2. It ages the page correctly or at-least allows for that possibility when the
>     page is used by the GPU.

I'm not sure that that is *necessarily* something we can conclude. It depends upon
access patterns of each program. For example, a "reduction" parallel program sends
over lots of data to the GPU, and only a tiny bit of (reduced!) data comes back
to the CPU. In that case, freeing the physical page on the CPU is actually the
best decision for the OS to make (if the OS is sufficiently prescient).

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-26  7:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 123+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-24 13:27 [PATCH v9 00/10] Add support for SVM atomics in Nouveau Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27 ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27 ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27 ` [PATCH v9 01/10] mm: Remove special swap entry functions Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27 ` [PATCH v9 02/10] mm/swapops: Rework swap entry manipulation code Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27 ` [PATCH v9 03/10] mm/rmap: Split try_to_munlock from try_to_unmap Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-25 18:39   ` Liam Howlett
2021-05-25 18:39     ` Liam Howlett
2021-05-25 18:39     ` [Nouveau] " Liam Howlett
2021-05-25 23:45     ` Shakeel Butt
2021-05-25 23:45       ` Shakeel Butt
2021-05-25 23:45       ` [Nouveau] " Shakeel Butt
2021-05-25 23:45       ` Shakeel Butt
2021-06-04 20:49       ` Liam Howlett
2021-06-04 20:49         ` Liam Howlett
2021-06-04 20:49         ` [Nouveau] " Liam Howlett
2021-06-05  0:41         ` Shakeel Butt
2021-06-05  0:41           ` Shakeel Butt
2021-06-05  0:41           ` [Nouveau] " Shakeel Butt
2021-06-05  0:41           ` Shakeel Butt
2021-06-05  3:39           ` Liam Howlett
2021-06-05  3:39             ` Liam Howlett
2021-06-05  3:39             ` [Nouveau] " Liam Howlett
2021-06-05  4:19             ` Shakeel Butt
2021-06-05  4:19               ` Shakeel Butt
2021-06-05  4:19               ` [Nouveau] " Shakeel Butt
2021-06-05  4:19               ` Shakeel Butt
2021-06-07  4:51           ` Alistair Popple
2021-06-07  4:51             ` Alistair Popple
2021-06-07  4:51             ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27 ` [PATCH v9 04/10] mm/rmap: Split migration into its own function Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27 ` [PATCH v9 05/10] mm: Rename migrate_pgmap_owner Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-26 19:41   ` Peter Xu
2021-05-26 19:41     ` Peter Xu
2021-05-26 19:41     ` [Nouveau] " Peter Xu
2021-05-24 13:27 ` [PATCH v9 06/10] mm/memory.c: Allow different return codes for copy_nonpresent_pte() Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-26 19:50   ` Peter Xu
2021-05-26 19:50     ` Peter Xu
2021-05-26 19:50     ` [Nouveau] " Peter Xu
2021-05-27  1:20     ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-27  1:20       ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-27  1:20       ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-27  1:44       ` Peter Xu
2021-05-27  1:44         ` Peter Xu
2021-05-27  1:44         ` [Nouveau] " Peter Xu
2021-05-24 13:27 ` [PATCH v9 07/10] mm: Device exclusive memory access Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 22:11   ` Andrew Morton
2021-05-24 22:11     ` Andrew Morton
2021-05-24 22:11     ` [Nouveau] " Andrew Morton
2021-05-25  1:31     ` John Hubbard
2021-05-25  1:31       ` John Hubbard
2021-05-25  1:31       ` [Nouveau] " John Hubbard
2021-05-25  9:21       ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-25  9:21         ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-25  9:21         ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-25 11:51     ` Balbir Singh
2021-05-25 11:51       ` Balbir Singh
2021-05-25 11:51       ` [Nouveau] " Balbir Singh
2021-05-26  7:17       ` John Hubbard [this message]
2021-05-26  7:17         ` John Hubbard
2021-05-26  7:17         ` [Nouveau] " John Hubbard
2021-05-26 13:30         ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-26 13:30           ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-26 13:30           ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-06-02  8:50         ` Balbir Singh
2021-06-02  8:50           ` Balbir Singh
2021-06-02  8:50           ` [Nouveau] " Balbir Singh
2021-06-02 14:37           ` Peter Xu
2021-06-02 14:37             ` Peter Xu
2021-06-02 14:37             ` [Nouveau] " Peter Xu
2021-06-03 11:39             ` Alistair Popple
2021-06-03 11:39               ` Alistair Popple
2021-06-03 11:39               ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-06-03 14:47               ` Peter Xu
2021-06-03 14:47                 ` Peter Xu
2021-06-03 14:47                 ` [Nouveau] " Peter Xu
2021-06-04  1:07                 ` Alistair Popple
2021-06-04  1:07                   ` Alistair Popple
2021-06-04  1:07                   ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-06-04 15:20                   ` Peter Xu
2021-06-04 15:20                     ` Peter Xu
2021-06-04 15:20                     ` [Nouveau] " Peter Xu
2021-06-03  8:37           ` John Hubbard
2021-06-03  8:37             ` John Hubbard
2021-06-03  8:37             ` [Nouveau] " John Hubbard
2021-05-26 19:28   ` Peter Xu
2021-05-26 19:28     ` Peter Xu
2021-05-26 19:28     ` [Nouveau] " Peter Xu
2021-05-27  3:35     ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-27  3:35       ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-27  3:35       ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-27 13:04       ` Peter Xu
2021-05-27 13:04         ` Peter Xu
2021-05-27 13:04         ` [Nouveau] " Peter Xu
2021-05-28  1:48         ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-28  1:48           ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-28  1:48           ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-28 13:11           ` Peter Xu
2021-05-28 13:11             ` Peter Xu
2021-05-28 13:11             ` [Nouveau] " Peter Xu
2021-05-24 13:27 ` [PATCH v9 08/10] mm: Selftests for exclusive device memory Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27 ` [PATCH v9 09/10] nouveau/svm: Refactor nouveau_range_fault Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27 ` [PATCH v9 10/10] nouveau/svm: Implement atomic SVM access Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` Alistair Popple
2021-05-24 13:27   ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=8844f8c1-d78c-e0f9-c046-592bd75d4c07@nvidia.com \
    --to=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
    --cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
    --cc=bskeggs@redhat.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=peterx@redhat.com \
    --cc=rcampbell@nvidia.com \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.