From: Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com>
To: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>,
"Li, Dennis" <Dennis.Li@amd.com>,
"amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
"Kuehling, Felix" <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>,
"Zhang, Hawking" <Hawking.Zhang@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Refine GPU recovery sequence to enhance its stability
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:18:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ecf465a2-d4fc-1cbf-a9d5-39c3844f23bb@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a970101f-89f1-8bdf-51d9-4a4e5e0f9e9a@amd.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7668 bytes --]
On 2021-04-12 2:05 p.m., Christian König wrote:
> Am 12.04.21 um 20:01 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
>>
>> On 2021-04-12 1:44 p.m., Christian König wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Am 12.04.21 um 19:27 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
>>>> On 2021-04-10 1:34 p.m., Christian König wrote:
>>>>> Hi Andrey,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 09.04.21 um 20:18 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
>>>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we use a list and a flag called 'emit_allowed' under a lock
>>>>>>>> such that in amdgpu_fence_emit we lock the list, check the flag
>>>>>>>> and if true add the new HW fence to list and proceed to HW
>>>>>>>> emition as normal, otherwise return with -ENODEV. In
>>>>>>>> amdgpu_pci_remove we take the lock, set the flag to false, and
>>>>>>>> then iterate the list and force signal it. Will this not
>>>>>>>> prevent any new HW fence creation from now on from any place
>>>>>>>> trying to do so ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Way to much overhead. The fence processing is intentionally lock
>>>>>>> free to avoid cache line bouncing because the IRQ can move from
>>>>>>> CPU to CPU.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need something which at least the processing of fences in the
>>>>>>> interrupt handler doesn't affect at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I see in the code, amdgpu_fence_emit is only called
>>>>>> from task context. Also, we can skip this list I proposed and
>>>>>> just use amdgpu_fence_driver_force_completion for each ring to
>>>>>> signal all created HW fences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, wait a second this gave me another idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> See amdgpu_fence_driver_force_completion():
>>>>>
>>>>> amdgpu_fence_write(ring, ring->fence_drv.sync_seq);
>>>>>
>>>>> If we change that to something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> amdgpu_fence_write(ring, ring->fence_drv.sync_seq + 0x3FFFFFFF);
>>>>>
>>>>> Not only the currently submitted, but also the next 0x3FFFFFFF
>>>>> fences will be considered signaled.
>>>>>
>>>>> This basically solves out problem of making sure that new fences
>>>>> are also signaled without any additional overhead whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Problem with this is that the act of setting the sync_seq to some
>>>> MAX value alone is not enough, you actually have to call
>>>> amdgpu_fence_process to iterate and signal the fences currently
>>>> stored in ring->fence_drv.fences array and to guarantee that once
>>>> you done your signalling no more HW fences will be added to that
>>>> array anymore. I was thinking to do something like bellow:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well we could implement the is_signaled callback once more, but I'm
>>> not sure if that is a good idea.
>>
>>
>> This indeed could save the explicit signaling I am doing bellow but I
>> also set an error code there which might be helpful to propagate to users
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> amdgpu_fence_emit()
>>>>
>>>> {
>>>>
>>>> dma_fence_init(fence);
>>>>
>>>> srcu_read_lock(amdgpu_unplug_srcu)
>>>>
>>>> if (!adev->unplug)) {
>>>>
>>>> seq = ++ring->fence_drv.sync_seq;
>>>> emit_fence(fence);
>>>>
>>>> */* We can't wait forever as the HW might be gone at any point*/**
>>>> dma_fence_wait_timeout(old_fence, 5S);*
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can pretty much ignore this wait here. It is only as a last
>>> resort so that we never overwrite the ring buffers.
>>
>>
>> If device is present how can I ignore this ?
>>
I think you missed my question here
>>
>>>
>>> But it should not have a timeout as far as I can see.
>>
>>
>> Without timeout wait the who approach falls apart as I can't call
>> srcu_synchronize on this scope because once device is physically gone
>> the wait here will be forever
>>
>
> Yeah, but this is intentional. The only alternative to avoid
> corruption is to wait with a timeout and call BUG() if that triggers.
> That isn't much better.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> ring->fence_drv.fences[seq &
>>>> ring->fence_drv.num_fences_mask] = fence;
>>>>
>>>> } else {
>>>>
>>>> dma_fence_set_error(fence, -ENODEV);
>>>> DMA_fence_signal(fence)
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> srcu_read_unlock(amdgpu_unplug_srcu)
>>>> return fence;
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> amdgpu_pci_remove
>>>>
>>>> {
>>>>
>>>> adev->unplug = true;
>>>> synchronize_srcu(amdgpu_unplug_srcu)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well that is just duplicating what drm_dev_unplug() should be doing
>>> on a different level.
>>
>>
>> drm_dev_unplug is on a much wider scope, for everything in the device
>> including 'flushing' in flight IOCTLs, this deals specifically with
>> the issue of force signalling HW fences
>>
>
> Yeah, but it adds the same overhead as the device srcu.
>
> Christian.
So what's the right approach ? How we guarantee that when running
amdgpu_fence_driver_force_completion we will signal all the HW fences
and not racing against some more fences insertion into that array ?
Andrey
>
>> Andrey
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>>> /* Past this point no more fence are submitted to HW ring and
>>>> hence we can safely call force signal on all that are currently there.
>>>> * Any subsequently created HW fences will be returned
>>>> signaled with an error code right away
>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> for_each_ring(adev)
>>>> amdgpu_fence_process(ring)
>>>>
>>>> drm_dev_unplug(dev);
>>>> Stop schedulers
>>>> cancel_sync(all timers and queued works);
>>>> hw_fini
>>>> unmap_mmio
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alternatively grabbing the reset write side and stopping and
>>>>>>>>> then restarting the scheduler could work as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't get the above and I don't see why I need to reuse the
>>>>>>>> GPU reset rw_lock. I rely on the SRCU unplug flag for unplug.
>>>>>>>> Also, not clear to me why are we focusing on the scheduler
>>>>>>>> threads, any code patch to generate HW fences should be
>>>>>>>> covered, so any code leading to amdgpu_fence_emit needs to be
>>>>>>>> taken into account such as, direct IB submissions, VM flushes
>>>>>>>> e.t.c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to work together with the reset lock anyway, cause a
>>>>>>> hotplug could run at the same time as a reset.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For going my way indeed now I see now that I have to take reset
>>>>>> write side lock during HW fences signalling in order to protect
>>>>>> against scheduler/HW fences detachment and reattachment during
>>>>>> schedulers stop/restart. But if we go with your approach then
>>>>>> calling drm_dev_unplug and scoping amdgpu_job_timeout with
>>>>>> drm_dev_enter/exit should be enough to prevent any concurrent GPU
>>>>>> resets during unplug. In fact I already do it anyway -
>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https:%2F%2Fcgit.freedesktop.org%2F~agrodzov%2Flinux%2Fcommit%2F%3Fh%3Ddrm-misc-next%26id%3Def0ea4dd29ef44d2649c5eda16c8f4869acc36b1&data=04%7C01%7Candrey.grodzovsky%40amd.com%7Ceefa9c90ed8c405ec3b708d8fc46daaa%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637536728550884740%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=UiNaJE%2BH45iYmbwSDnMSKZS5z0iak0fNlbbfYqKS2Jo%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, good point as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrey
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrey
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 14876 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 154 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-12 18:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-18 7:23 [PATCH 0/4] Refine GPU recovery sequence to enhance its stability Dennis Li
2021-03-18 7:23 ` [PATCH 1/4] drm/amdgpu: remove reset lock from low level functions Dennis Li
2021-03-18 7:23 ` [PATCH 2/4] drm/amdgpu: refine the GPU recovery sequence Dennis Li
2021-03-18 7:56 ` Christian König
2021-03-18 7:23 ` [PATCH 3/4] drm/amdgpu: instead of using down/up_read directly Dennis Li
2021-03-18 7:23 ` [PATCH 4/4] drm/amdkfd: add reset lock protection for kfd entry functions Dennis Li
2021-03-18 7:53 ` [PATCH 0/4] Refine GPU recovery sequence to enhance its stability Christian König
2021-03-18 8:28 ` Li, Dennis
2021-03-18 8:58 ` AW: " Koenig, Christian
2021-03-18 9:30 ` Li, Dennis
2021-03-18 9:51 ` Christian König
2021-04-05 17:58 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-06 10:34 ` Christian König
2021-04-06 11:21 ` Christian König
2021-04-06 21:22 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-07 10:28 ` Christian König
2021-04-07 19:44 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-08 8:22 ` Christian König
2021-04-08 8:32 ` Christian König
2021-04-08 16:08 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-08 18:58 ` Christian König
2021-04-08 20:39 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-09 6:53 ` Christian König
2021-04-09 7:01 ` Christian König
2021-04-09 15:42 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-09 16:39 ` Christian König
2021-04-09 18:18 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-10 17:34 ` Christian König
2021-04-12 17:27 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-12 17:44 ` Christian König
2021-04-12 18:01 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-12 18:05 ` Christian König
2021-04-12 18:18 ` Andrey Grodzovsky [this message]
2021-04-12 18:23 ` Christian König
2021-04-12 19:12 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-12 19:18 ` Christian König
2021-04-12 20:01 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-13 7:10 ` Christian König
2021-04-13 9:13 ` Li, Dennis
2021-04-13 9:14 ` Christian König
2021-04-13 20:08 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-04-13 15:12 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-13 18:03 ` Christian König
2021-04-13 18:18 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-13 18:25 ` Christian König
2021-04-13 18:30 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-14 7:01 ` Christian König
2021-04-14 14:36 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-14 14:58 ` Christian König
2021-04-15 6:27 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-15 7:02 ` Christian König
2021-04-15 14:11 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-15 15:09 ` Christian König
2021-04-13 20:07 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-04-13 5:36 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-04-13 7:07 ` Christian König
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=ecf465a2-d4fc-1cbf-a9d5-39c3844f23bb@amd.com \
--to=andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com \
--cc=Alexander.Deucher@amd.com \
--cc=Dennis.Li@amd.com \
--cc=Felix.Kuehling@amd.com \
--cc=Hawking.Zhang@amd.com \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).