Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Linux Graphics Next: Explicit fences everywhere and no BO fences - initial proposal

["Marek Olšák" <maraeo@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9760 bytes --]

Proposal for a new CS ioctl, kernel pseudo code:

lock(&global_lock);
serial = get_next_serial(dev);
add_wait_command(ring, serial - 1);
add_exec_cmdbuf(ring, user_cmdbuf);
add_signal_command(ring, serial);
*ring->doorbell = FIRE;
unlock(&global_lock);

See? Just like userspace submit, but in the kernel without
concurrency/preemption. Is this now safe enough for dma_fence?

Marek

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 4:36 PM Marek Olšák <maraeo@gmail.com> wrote:

> What about direct submit from the kernel where the process still has write
> access to the GPU ring buffer but doesn't use it? I think that solves your
> preemption example, but leaves a potential backdoor for a process to
> overwrite the signal commands, which shouldn't be a problem since we are OK
> with timeouts.
>
> Marek
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:23 AM Jason Ekstrand <jason@jlekstrand.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 10:16 AM Bas Nieuwenhuizen
>> <bas@basnieuwenhuizen.nl> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 5:00 PM Jason Ekstrand <jason@jlekstrand.net>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Sorry for the top-post but there's no good thing to reply to here...
>> > >
>> > > One of the things pointed out to me recently by Daniel Vetter that I
>> > > didn't fully understand before is that dma_buf has a very subtle
>> > > second requirement beyond finite time completion:  Nothing required
>> > > for signaling a dma-fence can allocate memory.  Why?  Because the act
>> > > of allocating memory may wait on your dma-fence.  This, as it turns
>> > > out, is a massively more strict requirement than finite time
>> > > completion and, I think, throws out all of the proposals we have so
>> > > far.
>> > >
>> > > Take, for instance, Marek's proposal for userspace involvement with
>> > > dma-fence by asking the kernel for a next serial and the kernel
>> > > trusting userspace to signal it.  That doesn't work at all if
>> > > allocating memory to trigger a dma-fence can blow up.  There's simply
>> > > no way for the kernel to trust userspace to not do ANYTHING which
>> > > might allocate memory.  I don't even think there's a way userspace can
>> > > trust itself there.  It also blows up my plan of moving the fences to
>> > > transition boundaries.
>> > >
>> > > Not sure where that leaves us.
>> >
>> > Honestly the more I look at things I think userspace-signalable fences
>> > with a timeout sound like they are a valid solution for these issues.
>> > Especially since (as has been mentioned countless times in this email
>> > thread) userspace already has a lot of ways to cause timeouts and or
>> > GPU hangs through GPU work already.
>> >
>> > Adding a timeout on the signaling side of a dma_fence would ensure:
>> >
>> > - The dma_fence signals in finite time
>> > -  If the timeout case does not allocate memory then memory allocation
>> > is not a blocker for signaling.
>> >
>> > Of course you lose the full dependency graph and we need to make sure
>> > garbage collection of fences works correctly when we have cycles.
>> > However, the latter sounds very doable and the first sounds like it is
>> > to some extent inevitable.
>> >
>> > I feel like I'm missing some requirement here given that we
>> > immediately went to much more complicated things but can't find it.
>> > Thoughts?
>>
>> Timeouts are sufficient to protect the kernel but they make the fences
>> unpredictable and unreliable from a userspace PoV.  One of the big
>> problems we face is that, once we expose a dma_fence to userspace,
>> we've allowed for some pretty crazy potential dependencies that
>> neither userspace nor the kernel can sort out.  Say you have marek's
>> "next serial, please" proposal and a multi-threaded application.
>> Between time time you ask the kernel for a serial and get a dma_fence
>> and submit the work to signal that serial, your process may get
>> preempted, something else shoved in which allocates memory, and then
>> we end up blocking on that dma_fence.  There's no way userspace can
>> predict and defend itself from that.
>>
>> So I think where that leaves us is that there is no safe place to
>> create a dma_fence except for inside the ioctl which submits the work
>> and only after any necessary memory has been allocated.  That's a
>> pretty stiff requirement.  We may still be able to interact with
>> userspace a bit more explicitly but I think it throws any notion of
>> userspace direct submit out the window.
>>
>> --Jason
>>
>>
>> > - Bas
>> > >
>> > > --Jason
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:42 AM Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 6:27 PM Marek Olšák <maraeo@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 5:07 AM Michel Dänzer <michel@daenzer.net>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On 2021-04-28 8:59 a.m., Christian König wrote:
>> > > > >> > Hi Dave,
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Am 27.04.21 um 21:23 schrieb Marek Olšák:
>> > > > >> >> Supporting interop with any device is always possible. It
>> depends on which drivers we need to interoperate with and update them.
>> We've already found the path forward for amdgpu. We just need to find out
>> how many other drivers need to be updated and evaluate the cost/benefit
>> aspect.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Marek
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 2:38 PM Dave Airlie <
>> airlied@gmail.com <mailto:airlied@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>     On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 22:06, Christian König
>> > > > >> >>     <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com <mailto:
>> ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > > > >> >>     >
>> > > > >> >>     > 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.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>     Since I think you mentioned you'd only be enabling this
>> on newer
>> > > > >> >>     chipsets, won't it be a problem for A+A where one A is a
>> generation
>> > > > >> >>     behind the other?
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Crap, that is a good point as well.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >>     I'm not really liking where this is going btw, seems like
>> a ill
>> > > > >> >>     thought out concept, if AMD is really going down the road
>> of designing
>> > > > >> >>     hw that is currently Linux incompatible, you are going to
>> have to
>> > > > >> >>     accept a big part of the burden in bringing this support
>> in to more
>> > > > >> >>     than just amd drivers for upcoming generations of gpu.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Well we don't really like that either, but we have no other
>> option as far as I can see.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I don't really understand what "future hw may remove support for
>> kernel queues" means exactly. While the per-context queues can be mapped to
>> userspace directly, they don't *have* to be, do they? I.e. the kernel
>> driver should be able to either intercept userspace access to the queues,
>> or in the worst case do it all itself, and provide the existing
>> synchronization semantics as needed?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Surely there are resource limits for the per-context queues, so
>> the kernel driver needs to do some kind of virtualization / multi-plexing
>> anyway, or we'll get sad user faces when there's no queue available for
>> <current hot game>.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I'm probably missing something though, awaiting enlightenment. :)
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The hw interface for userspace is that the ring buffer is mapped
>> to the process address space alongside a doorbell aperture (4K page) that
>> isn't real memory, but when the CPU writes into it, it tells the hw
>> scheduler that there are new GPU commands in the ring buffer. Userspace
>> inserts all the wait, draw, and signal commands into the ring buffer and
>> then "rings" the doorbell. It's my understanding that the ring buffer and
>> the doorbell are always mapped in the same GPU address space as the
>> process, which makes it very difficult to emulate the current protected
>> ring buffers in the kernel. The VMID of the ring buffer is also not
>> changeable.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The doorbell does not have to be mapped into the process's GPU
>> virtual
>> > > > address space.  The CPU could write to it directly.  Mapping it into
>> > > > the GPU's virtual address space would allow you to have a device
>> kick
>> > > > off work however rather than the CPU.  E.g., the GPU could kick off
>> > > > it's own work or multiple devices could kick off work without CPU
>> > > > involvement.
>> > > >
>> > > > Alex
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > The hw scheduler doesn't do any synchronization and it doesn't
>> see any dependencies. It only chooses which queue to execute, so it's
>> really just a simple queue manager handling the virtualization aspect and
>> not much else.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Marek
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > dri-devel mailing list
>> > > > > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>> > > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > mesa-dev mailing list
>> > > > mesa-dev@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
>>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 13160 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel