Message-ID: <CAJuCfpF2Q1qVkv75czc2AFRrp25eNz7hqmeO9Wx8e5VY7PvyJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Feb 2021 12:16:51 -0800
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc:     Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Liam Mark <lmark@...eaurora.org>,
        Chris Goldsworthy <cgoldswo@...eaurora.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...nel.org>,
        Brian Starkey <Brian.Starkey@....com>,
        Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@...gle.com>,
        Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Mentz <danielmentz@...gle.com>,
        Ørjan Eide <orjan.eide@....com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...labora.com>,
        Simon Ser <contact@...rsion.fr>,
        James Jones <jajones@...dia.com>,
        linux-media <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v6 1/7] drm: Add a sharable drm page-pool implementation

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:03 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 6:46 PM Christian König <christian.koenig@....com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 09.02.21 um 18:33 schrieb Suren Baghdasaryan:
> > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:57 AM Christian König <christian.koenig@....com> wrote:
> > >> Am 09.02.21 um 13:11 schrieb Christian König:
> > >>> [SNIP]
> > >>>>>> +void drm_page_pool_add(struct drm_page_pool *pool, struct page *page)
> > >>>>>> +{
> > >>>>>> +     spin_lock(&pool->lock);
> > >>>>>> +     list_add_tail(&page->lru, &pool->items);
> > >>>>>> +     pool->count++;
> > >>>>>> +     atomic_long_add(1 << pool->order, &total_pages);
> > >>>>>> +     spin_unlock(&pool->lock);
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> +     mod_node_page_state(page_pgdat(page),
> > >>>>>> NR_KERNEL_MISC_RECLAIMABLE,
> > >>>>>> +                         1 << pool->order);
> > >>>>> Hui what? What should that be good for?
> > >>>> This is a carryover from the ION page pool implementation:
> > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.kernel.org%2Fpub%2Fscm%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Ftorvalds%2Flinux.git%2Ftree%2Fdrivers%2Fstaging%2Fandroid%2Fion%2Fion_page_pool.c%3Fh%3Dv5.10%23n28&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7Cdccccff8edcd4d147a5b08d8cd20cff2%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637484888114923580%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=9%2BIBC0tezSV6Ci4S3kWfW%2BQvJm4mdunn3dF6C0kyfCw%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My sense is it helps with the vmstat/meminfo accounting so folks can
> > >>>> see the cached pages are shrinkable/freeable. This maybe falls under
> > >>>> other dmabuf accounting/stats discussions, so I'm happy to remove it
> > >>>> for now, or let the drivers using the shared page pool logic handle
> > >>>> the accounting themselves?
> > >> Intentionally separated the discussion for that here.
> > >>
> > >> As far as I can see this is just bluntly incorrect.
> > >>
> > >> Either the page is reclaimable or it is part of our pool and freeable
> > >> through the shrinker, but never ever both.
> > > IIRC the original motivation for counting ION pooled pages as
> > > reclaimable was to include them into /proc/meminfo's MemAvailable
> > > calculations. NR_KERNEL_MISC_RECLAIMABLE defined as "reclaimable
> > > non-slab kernel pages" seems like a good place to account for them but
> > > I might be wrong.
> >
> > Yeah, that's what I see here as well. But exactly that is utterly nonsense.
> >
> > Those pages are not "free" in the sense that get_free_page could return
> > them directly.
>
> Well on Android that is kinda true, because Android has it's
> oom-killer (way back it was just a shrinker callback, not sure how it
> works now), which just shot down all the background apps. So at least
> some of that (everything used by background apps) is indeed
> reclaimable on Android.
>
> But that doesn't hold on Linux in general, so we can't really do this
> for common code.
>
> Also I had a long meeting with Suren, John and other googles
> yesterday, and the aim is now to try and support all the Android gpu
> memory accounting needs with cgroups. That should work, and it will
> allow Android to handle all the Android-ism in a clean way in upstream
> code. Or that's at least the plan.
>
> I think the only thing we identified that Android still needs on top
> is the dma-buf sysfs stuff, so that shared buffers (which on Android
> are always dma-buf, and always stay around as dma-buf fd throughout
> their lifetime) can be listed/analyzed with full detail.
>
> But aside from this the plan for all the per-process or per-heap
> account, oom-killer integration and everything else is planned to be
> done with cgroups.

Until cgroups are ready we probably will need to add a sysfs node to
report the total dmabuf pool size and I think that would cover our
current accounting need here.
As I mentioned, not including dmabuf pools into MemAvailable would
affect that stat and I'm wondering if pools should be considered as
part of MemAvailable or not. Since MemAvailable includes SReclaimable
I think it makes sense to include them but maybe there are other
considerations that I'm missing?

> Android (for now) only needs to account overall gpu
> memory since none of it is swappable on android drivers anyway, plus
> no vram, so not much needed.
>
> Cheers, Daniel
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Christian.
> >
> > >
> > >> In the best case this just messes up the accounting, in the worst case
> > >> it can cause memory corruption.
> > >>
> > >> Christian.
> >
>
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch

Powered by blists - more mailing lists