Message-ID: <562bd20d-36b9-a617-92cc-460f2eece22e@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 11:14:01 +0100
From:   Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add support for DRM cgroup memory
 accounting.


On 10/05/2023 19:46, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 04:59:01PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> The misc controller is not granular enough. A single computer may have any number of
>> graphics cards, some of them with multiple regions of vram inside a single card.
> 
> Extending the misc controller to support dynamic keys shouldn't be that
> difficult.
> 
> ...
>> In the next version, I will move all the code for handling the resource limit to
>> TTM's eviction layer, because otherwise it cannot handle the resource limit correctly.
>>
>> The effect of moving the code to TTM, is that it will make the code even more generic
>> for drivers that have vram and use TTM. When using TTM, you only have to describe your
>> VRAM, update some fields in the TTM manager and (un)register your device with the
>> cgroup handler on (un)load. It's quite trivial to add vram accounting to amdgpu and
>> nouveau. [2]
>>
>> If you want to add a knob for scheduling weight for a process, it makes sense to
>> also add resource usage as a knob, otherwise the effect of that knob is very
>> limited. So even for Tvrtko's original proposed usecase, it would make sense.
> 
> It does make sense but unlike Tvrtko's scheduling weights what's being
> proposed doesn't seem to encapsulate GPU memory resource in a generic enough
> manner at least to my untrained eyes. ie. w/ drm.weight, I don't need any
> specific knoweldge of how a specific GPU operates to say "this guy should
> get 2x processing power over that guy". This more or less holds for other
> major resources including CPU, memory and IO. What you're proposing seems a
> lot more tied to hardware details and users would have to know a lot more
> about how memory is configured on that particular GPU.
> 
> Now, if this is inherent to how all, or at least most, GPUs operate, sure,
> but otherwise let's start small in terms of interface and not take up space
> which should be for something universal. If this turns out to be the way,
> expanding to take up the generic interface space isn't difficult.
> 
> I don't know GPU space so please educate me where I'm wrong.

I was hoping it might be passable in principle (in some form, pending 
discussion on semantics) given how Maarten's proposal starts with only 
very specific per-device-per-memory regions controls, which is 
applicable to many devices. And hard limit at that, which probably has 
less complicated semantics, or at least implementation.

My understanding of the proposal is that the allocation either fits, or 
it evicts from the parent's hierarchy (if possible) and then fits, or it 
fails. Which sounds simple enough.

I do however agree that it is a limited use case. So from the negative 
side of the debating camp I have to ask if this use case could be simply 
satisfied by providing a driver/device global over commit yes/no 
control? In other words, is it really important to partition the vram 
space ahead of time, and from the kernel side too? Wouldn't the relevant 
(highly specialised) applications work just fine with global over commit 
disabled? Even if the option to configure their maximum allowed working 
set from the userspace side was needed.

Or if we conclude cgroup controller is the way to go, would adding less 
specific limits make it more palatable? I am thinking here some generic 
"device memory resident". Not per device, not per memory region. So 
userspace/admins have some chance of configuring generic limits. That 
would require coming up with more generic use cases though so another 
thing to discuss. Like who would use that and for what.

Assuming also we can agree that "device memory resident" is a 
stable/solid concept across drm. Should be easier than for integrated 
GPUs, for which I have to admit I currently don't remember if 
allocations are already consistently covered by the memory controller. 
Even if they are ownership is probably wrong.

Group ownership is possibly a concern in this proposal too. Because I 
remember the previous attempt of adding some drm stats to memcg 
explained that for instance on Android all buffers are allocated by a 
central process and then handed over to other processes. So transferring 
ownership was explained as critical.

Regards,

Tvrtko

P.S.
On the matter of naming the uapi interface - in any case I wouldn't use 
the "unqualified" drm namespace such as drm.max/current/capacity. I 
think all those should include a specific prefix to signify it is about 
memory. In some way.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists