Re: [PATCH] dma-fence: Document recoverable page fault implications

[Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>]

On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 04:40:38PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> Am 03.02.21 um 16:29 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > Recently there was a fairly long thread about recoreable hardware page
> > faults, how they can deadlock, and what to do about that.
> > 
> > While the discussion is still fresh I figured good time to try and
> > document the conclusions a bit. This documentation section explains
> > what's the potential problem, and the remedies we've discussed,
> > roughly ordered from best to worst.
> > 
> > v2: Linus -> Linux typoe (Dave)
> > 
> > v3:
> > - Make it clear drivers only need to implement one option (Christian)
> > - Make it clearer that implicit sync is out the window with exclusive
> >    fences (Christian)
> > - Add the fairly theoretical option of segementing the memory (either
> >    statically or through dynamic checks at runtime for which piece of
> >    memory is managed how) and explain why it's not a great idea (Felix)
> > 
> > References: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Fdri-devel%2F20210107030127.20393-1-Felix.Kuehling%40amd.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7C767e1096b9554ab5b6dd08d8c8587f0f%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637479629728871138%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Fth2y8c3LuNbweQGrsS7VjYESGlshu6DfQyikiWBwyQ%3D&reserved=0
> > Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@intel.com>
> > Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > Cc: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> > Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
> > Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>

Pulled this in, thanks everyone who helped clarify the situation here.

Cheers, Daniel

> I still haven't fully given up on supporting implicit sync with user fences,
> but it is really an eeek, let's try very hard to avoid that, problem.
> 
> Christian
> 
> > ---
> >   Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst
> > index a2133d69872c..7f37ec30d9fd 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst
> > @@ -257,3 +257,79 @@ fences in the kernel. This means:
> >     userspace is allowed to use userspace fencing or long running compute
> >     workloads. This also means no implicit fencing for shared buffers in these
> >     cases.
> > +
> > +Recoverable Hardware Page Faults Implications
> > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > +
> > +Modern hardware supports recoverable page faults, which has a lot of
> > +implications for DMA fences.
> > +
> > +First, a pending page fault obviously holds up the work that's running on the
> > +accelerator and a memory allocation is usually required to resolve the fault.
> > +But memory allocations are not allowed to gate completion of DMA fences, which
> > +means any workload using recoverable page faults cannot use DMA fences for
> > +synchronization. Synchronization fences controlled by userspace must be used
> > +instead.
> > +
> > +On GPUs this poses a problem, because current desktop compositor protocols on
> > +Linux rely on DMA fences, which means without an entirely new userspace stack
> > +built on top of userspace fences, they cannot benefit from recoverable page
> > +faults. Specifically this means implicit synchronization will not be possible.
> > +The exception is when page faults are only used as migration hints and never to
> > +on-demand fill a memory request. For now this means recoverable page
> > +faults on GPUs are limited to pure compute workloads.
> > +
> > +Furthermore GPUs usually have shared resources between the 3D rendering and
> > +compute side, like compute units or command submission engines. If both a 3D
> > +job with a DMA fence and a compute workload using recoverable page faults are
> > +pending they could deadlock:
> > +
> > +- The 3D workload might need to wait for the compute job to finish and release
> > +  hardware resources first.
> > +
> > +- The compute workload might be stuck in a page fault, because the memory
> > +  allocation is waiting for the DMA fence of the 3D workload to complete.
> > +
> > +There are a few options to prevent this problem, one of which drivers need to
> > +ensure:
> > +
> > +- Compute workloads can always be preempted, even when a page fault is pending
> > +  and not yet repaired. Not all hardware supports this.
> > +
> > +- DMA fence workloads and workloads which need page fault handling have
> > +  independent hardware resources to guarantee forward progress. This could be
> > +  achieved through e.g. through dedicated engines and minimal compute unit
> > +  reservations for DMA fence workloads.
> > +
> > +- The reservation approach could be further refined by only reserving the
> > +  hardware resources for DMA fence workloads when they are in-flight. This must
> > +  cover the time from when the DMA fence is visible to other threads up to
> > +  moment when fence is completed through dma_fence_signal().
> > +
> > +- As a last resort, if the hardware provides no useful reservation mechanics,
> > +  all workloads must be flushed from the GPU when switching between jobs
> > +  requiring DMA fences or jobs requiring page fault handling: This means all DMA
> > +  fences must complete before a compute job with page fault handling can be
> > +  inserted into the scheduler queue. And vice versa, before a DMA fence can be
> > +  made visible anywhere in the system, all compute workloads must be preempted
> > +  to guarantee all pending GPU page faults are flushed.
> > +
> > +- Only a fairly theoretical option would be to untangle these dependencies when
> > +  allocating memory to repair hardware page faults, either through separate
> > +  memory blocks or runtime tracking of the full dependency graph of all DMA
> > +  fences. This results very wide impact on the kernel, since resolving the page
> > +  on the CPU side can itself involve a page fault. It is much more feasible and
> > +  robust to limit the impact of handling hardware page faults to the specific
> > +  driver.
> > +
> > +Note that workloads that run on independent hardware like copy engines or other
> > +GPUs do not have any impact. This allows us to keep using DMA fences internally
> > +in the kernel even for resolving hardware page faults, e.g. by using copy
> > +engines to clear or copy memory needed to resolve the page fault.
> > +
> > +In some ways this page fault problem is a special case of the `Infinite DMA
> > +Fences` discussions: Infinite fences from compute workloads are allowed to
> > +depend on DMA fences, but not the other way around. And not even the page fault
> > +problem is new, because some other CPU thread in userspace might
> > +hit a page fault which holds up a userspace fence - supporting page faults on
> > +GPUs doesn't anything fundamentally new.
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel