Message-ID: <d9ceeb30-2275-0fe9-cdd7-ae3d7e696c8e@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2023 15:20:00 +0100
From:   Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Cc:     Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>,
        Christopher Healy <healych@...zon.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] drm: Add fdinfo memory stats


On 17/04/2023 14:42, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 4:10 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
> <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/04/2023 08:48, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 06:40:27AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 1:57 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
>>>> <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13/04/2023 21:05, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 05:40:21PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/04/2023 14:27, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 01:58:34PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/04/2023 20:18, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 11:42:07AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 11:17 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:59:54AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 7:42 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/04/2023 23:56, Rob Clark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Add support to dump GEM stats to fdinfo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> v2: Fix typos, change size units to match docs, use div_u64
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> v3: Do it in core
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Documentation/gpu/drm-usage-stats.rst | 21 ++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c            | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        include/drm/drm_file.h                |  1 +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        include/drm/drm_gem.h                 | 19 +++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        4 files changed, 117 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-usage-stats.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-usage-stats.rst
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index b46327356e80..b5e7802532ed 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-usage-stats.rst
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-usage-stats.rst
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -105,6 +105,27 @@ object belong to this client, in the respective memory region.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Default unit shall be bytes with optional unit specifiers of 'KiB' or 'MiB'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        indicating kibi- or mebi-bytes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +- drm-shared-memory: <uint> [KiB|MiB]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +The total size of buffers that are shared with another file (ie. have more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +than a single handle).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +- drm-private-memory: <uint> [KiB|MiB]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +The total size of buffers that are not shared with another file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +- drm-resident-memory: <uint> [KiB|MiB]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +The total size of buffers that are resident in system memory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this naming maybe does not work best with the existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drm-memory-<region> keys.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it was very deliberate not to conflict with the existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drm-memory-<region> keys ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't have preferred drm-memory-{active,resident,...} but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be mis-parsed by existing userspace so my hands were a bit tied.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about introduce the concept of a memory region from the start and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use naming similar like we do for engines?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drm-memory-$CATEGORY-$REGION: ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we document a bunch of categories and their semantics, for instance:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'size' - All reachable objects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'shared' - Subset of 'size' with handle_count > 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'resident' - Objects with backing store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'active' - Objects in use, subset of resident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'purgeable' - Or inactive? Subset of resident.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We keep the same semantics as with process memory accounting (if I got
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it right) which could be desirable for a simplified mental model.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (AMD needs to remind me of their 'drm-memory-...' keys semantics. If we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly captured this in the first round it should be equivalent to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'resident' above. In any case we can document no category is equal to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which category, and at most one of the two must be output.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Region names we at most partially standardize. Like we could say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'system' is to be used where backing store is system RAM and others are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver defined.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then discrete GPUs could emit N sets of key-values, one for each memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> region they support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this all also works for objects which can be migrated between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory regions. 'Size' accounts them against all regions while for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'resident' they only appear in the region of their current placement, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not too sure how to rectify different memory regions with this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since drm core doesn't really know about the driver's memory regions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps we can go back to this being a helper and drivers with vram
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just don't use the helper?  Or??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think if you flip it around to drm-$CATEGORY-memory{-$REGION}: then it
>>>>>>>>>>>> all works out reasonably consistently?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is basically what we have now.  I could append -system to each to
>>>>>>>>>>> make things easier to add vram/etc (from a uabi standpoint)..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What you have isn't really -system, but everything. So doesn't really make
>>>>>>>>>> sense to me to mark this -system, it's only really true for integrated (if
>>>>>>>>>> they don't have stolen or something like that).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also my comment was more in reply to Tvrtko's suggestion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right so my proposal was drm-memory-$CATEGORY-$REGION which I think aligns
>>>>>>>>> with the current drm-memory-$REGION by extending, rather than creating
>>>>>>>>> confusion with different order of key name components.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh my comment was pretty much just bikeshed, in case someone creates a
>>>>>>>> $REGION that other drivers use for $CATEGORY. Kinda Rob's parsing point.
>>>>>>>> So $CATEGORY before the -memory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Otoh I don't think that'll happen, so I guess we can go with whatever more
>>>>>>>> folks like :-) I don't really care much personally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay I missed the parsing problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AMD currently has (among others) drm-memory-vram, which we could define in
>>>>>>>>> the spec maps to category X, if category component is not present.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some examples:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> drm-memory-resident-system:
>>>>>>>>> drm-memory-size-lmem0:
>>>>>>>>> drm-memory-active-vram:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Etc.. I think it creates a consistent story.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Other than this, my two I think significant opens which haven't been
>>>>>>>>> addressed yet are:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do we want totals (not per region) when userspace can trivially
>>>>>>>>> aggregate if they want. What is the use case?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Current proposal limits the value to whole objects and fixates that by
>>>>>>>>> having it in the common code. If/when some driver is able to support sub-BO
>>>>>>>>> granularity they will need to opt out of the common printer at which point
>>>>>>>>> it may be less churn to start with a helper rather than mid-layer. Or maybe
>>>>>>>>> some drivers already support this, I don't know. Given how important VM BIND
>>>>>>>>> is I wouldn't be surprised.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I feel like for drivers using ttm we want a ttm helper which takes care of
>>>>>>>> the region printing in hopefully a standard way. And that could then also
>>>>>>>> take care of all kinds of of partial binding and funny rules (like maybe
>>>>>>>> we want a standard vram region that addds up all the lmem regions on
>>>>>>>> intel, so that all dgpu have a common vram bucket that generic tools
>>>>>>>> understand?).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First part yes, but for the second I would think we want to avoid any
>>>>>>> aggregation in the kernel which can be done in userspace just as well. Such
>>>>>>> total vram bucket would be pretty useless on Intel even since userspace
>>>>>>> needs to be region aware to make use of all resources. It could even be
>>>>>>> counter productive I think - "why am I getting out of memory when half of my
>>>>>>> vram is unused!?".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not for intel-aware userspace. This is for fairly generic "gputop"
>>>>>> style userspace, which might simply have no clue or interest in what lmemX
>>>>>> means, but would understand vram.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aggregating makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lmem vs vram is now an argument not about aggregation but about
>>>>> standardizing regions names.
>>>>>
>>>>> One detail also is a change in philosophy compared to engine stats where
>>>>> engine names are not centrally prescribed and it was expected userspace
>>>>> will have to handle things generically and with some vendor specific
>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like in my gputop patches. It doesn't need to understand what is what,
>>>>> it just finds what's there and presents it to the user.
>>>>>
>>>>> Come some accel driver with local memory it wouldn't be vram any more.
>>>>> Or even a headless data center GPU. So I really don't think it is good
>>>>> to hardcode 'vram' in the spec, or midlayer, or helpers.
>>>>>
>>>>> And for aggregation.. again, userspace can do it just as well. If we do
>>>>> it in kernel then immediately we have multiple sets of keys to output
>>>>> for any driver which wants to show the region view. IMO it is just
>>>>> pointless work in the kernel and more code in the kernel, when userspace
>>>>> can do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proposal A (one a discrete gpu, one category only):
>>>>>
>>>>> drm-resident-memory: x KiB
>>>>> drm-resident-memory-system: x KiB
>>>>> drm-resident-memory-vram: x KiB
>>>>>
>>>>> Two loops in the kernel, more parsing in userspace.
>>>>
>>>> why would it be more than one loop, ie.
>>>>
>>>>       mem.resident += size;
>>>>       mem.category[cat].resident += size;
>>>>
>>>> At the end of the day, there is limited real-estate to show a million
>>>> different columns of information.  Even the gputop patches I posted
>>>> don't show everything of what is currently there.  And nvtop only
>>>> shows toplevel resident stat.  So I think the "everything" stat is
>>>> going to be what most tools use.
>>>
>>> Yeah with enough finesse the double-loop isn't needed, it's just the
>>> simplest possible approach.
>>>
>>> Also this is fdinfo, I _really_ want perf data showing that it's a
>>> real-world problem when we conjecture about algorithmic complexity.
>>> procutils have been algorithmically garbage since decades after all :-)
>>
>> Just run it. :)
>>
>> Algorithmic complexity is quite obvious and not a conjecture - to find
>> DRM clients you have to walk _all_ pids and _all_ fds under them. So
>> amount of work can scale very quickly and even _not_ with the number of
>> DRM clients.
>>
>> It's not too bad on my desktop setup but it is significantly more CPU
>> intensive than top(1).
>>
>> It would be possible to optimise the current code some more by not
>> parsing full fdinfo (may become more important as number of keys grow),
>> but that's only relevant when number of drm fds is large. It doesn't
>> solve the basic pids * open fds search for which we'd need a way to walk
>> the list of pids with drm fds directly.
> 
> All of which has (almost[1]) nothing to do with one loop or two

Correct, this was just a side discussion where I understood Daniel is 
asking about the wider performance story. Perhaps I misunderstood.

> (ignoring for a moment that I already pointed out a single loop is all
> that is needed).  If CPU overhead is a problem, we could perhaps come
> up some sysfs which has one file per drm_file and side-step crawling
> of all of the proc * fd.  I'll play around with it some but I'm pretty
> sure you are trying to optimize the wrong thing.

Yes, that's what I meant too in "a way to walk the list of pids with drm 
fds directly".

Regards,

Tvrtko

> 
> BR,
> -R
> 
> [1] generally a single process using drm has multiple fd's pointing at
> the same drm_file.. which makes the current approach of having to read
> fdinfo to find the client-id sub-optimal.  But still the total # of
> proc * fd is much larger

Powered by blists - more mailing lists