Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/7] drm/i915/gem/ttm: Respect the objection region in placement_from_obj

[Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 18:39, Jason Ekstrand <jason@jlekstrand.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:00 AM Matthew Auld
> <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 16:52, Matthew Auld
> > <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 15:10, Jason Ekstrand <jason@jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 8:54 AM Matthew Auld
> > > > <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 23:39, Jason Ekstrand <jason@jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whenever we had a user object (n_placements > 0), we were ignoring
> > > > > > obj->mm.region and always putting obj->placements[0] as the requested
> > > > > > region.  For LMEM+SMEM objects, this was causing them to get shoved into
> > > > > > LMEM on every i915_ttm_get_pages() even when SMEM was requested by, say,
> > > > > > i915_gem_object_migrate().
> > > > >
> > > > > i915_ttm_migrate calls i915_ttm_place_from_region() directly with the
> > > > > requested region, so there shouldn't be an issue with migration right?
> > > > > Do you have some more details?
> > > >
> > > > With i915_ttm_migrate directly, no.  But, in the last patch in the
> > > > series, we're trying to migrate LMEM+SMEM buffers into SMEM on
> > > > attach() and pin it there.  This blows up in a very unexpected (IMO)
> > > > way.  The flow goes something like this:
> > > >
> > > >  - Client attempts a dma-buf import from another device
> > > >  - In attach() we call i915_gem_object_migrate() which calls
> > > > i915_ttm_migrate() which migrates as requested.
> > > >  - Once the migration is complete, we call i915_gem_object_pin_pages()
> > > > which calls i915_ttm_get_pages() which depends on
> > > > i915_ttm_placement_from_obj() and so migrates it right back to LMEM.
> > >
> > > The mm.pages must be NULL here, otherwise it would just increment the
> > > pages_pin_count?
>
> Given that the test is using the ____four_underscores version, it
> doesn't have that check.  However, this executes after we've done the
> dma-buf import which pinned pages.  So we should definitely have
> pages.

We shouldn't call ____four_underscores() if we might already have
pages though. Under non-TTM that would leak the pages, and in TTM we
might hit the WARN_ON(mm->pages) in __i915_ttm_get_pages(), if for
example nothing was moved. I take it we can't just call pin_pages()?
Four scary underscores usually means "don't call this in normal code".

>
> > > >
> > > > Maybe the problem here is actually that our TTM code isn't respecting
> > > > obj->mm.pages_pin_count?
> > >
> > > I think if the resource is moved, we always nuke the mm.pages after
> > > being notified of the move. Also TTM is also not allowed to move
> > > pinned buffers.
> > >
> > > I guess if we are evicted/swapped, so assuming we are not holding the
> > > object lock, and it's not pinned, the future call to get_pages() will
> > > see mm.pages = NULL, even though the ttm_resource is still there, and
> > > because we prioritise the placements[0], instead of mm.region we end
> > > up moving it for no good reason. But in your case you are holding the
> > > lock, or it's pinned? Also is this just with the selftest, or
> > > something real?
> >
> > Or at least in the selftest I see ____i915_gem_object_get_pages()
> > which doesn't even consider the mm.pages AFAIK.
>
> The bogus migration is happening as part of the
> __i915_gem_object_get_pages() (2 __underscores) call in
> i915_gem_dmabuf_attach (see last patch).  That code is attempting to
> migrate the BO to SMEM and then pin it there using the obvious calls
> to do so.  However, in the pin_pages call, it gets implicitly migrated
> back to LMEM thanks to i915_ttm_get_pages().  Why is _get_pages()
> migrating things at all?

Not sure yet, but __two_underscores() checks if
i915_gem_object_has_pages() before actually calling into
i915_ttm_get_pages(), so the mm.pages would have to be NULL here for
some reason, so best guess is something to do with move_notify().

>
> --Jason
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In case you can't tell, I really have no clue what I'm doing here.
> > > > I'm really stumbling around in the dark finding things that make my
> > > > bug go away.  I'm happy for the feedback.
> > > >
> > > > --Jason
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason@jlekstrand.net>
> > > > > > Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c | 3 +--
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c
> > > > > > index d30f274c329c7..5985e994d56cf 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c
> > > > > > @@ -150,8 +150,7 @@ i915_ttm_placement_from_obj(const struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> > > > > >         unsigned int i;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         placement->num_placement = 1;
> > > > > > -       i915_ttm_place_from_region(num_allowed ? obj->mm.placements[0] :
> > > > > > -                                  obj->mm.region, requested, flags);
> > > > > > +       i915_ttm_place_from_region(obj->mm.region, requested, flags);
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         /* Cache this on object? */
> > > > > >         placement->num_busy_placement = num_allowed;
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 2.31.1
> > > > > >
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx