On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 10:25 +0100, Matthew Auld wrote:
On 18/03/2022 18:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
Maybe also good to add dri-devel to these discussions.
I'm not sure where exactly we landed with dgpu error capture (maybe I should check the code but it's really w/e here), but I think we can also toss in "you need a non-recoverable context for error capture to work on dgpu". Since that simplifies things even more. Maybe Thomas forgot to add that to the list of restrictions.
Not sure whether we reached a conclusion here, but after discussing with Daniel in another thread, What about:
1) Reject error capture on recoverable contexts. That means we are free to implement reasonable error capture from outside the fence signalling critical path moving forward. Makes it easier to blit buffer content.
2) No additional restrictions on capture buffers, They are best effort anyway. If they are not mappable, they don't end up in the error log for now (affects only small BAR systems). Moving forward we can blit the content to system or mappable LMEM for capture once the gpu reset has completed.
/Thomas
Anyway on the "we can't capture lmem-only compressed buffers", I think that's totally fine. Those are for render targets, and we don't capture those. Adding Lionel and Ken to confirm.
Ken, Lionel: gentle ping on this?
-Daniel
On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 17:26, Bloomfield, Jon jon.bloomfield@intel.com wrote:
@Thomas Hellström - I agree :-)
My question was really to @Joonas Lahtinen, who was saying we could always migrate in the CPU fault handler. I am pushing back on that unless we have no choice. It's the very complication we were trying to avoid with the current SAS. If that's what's needed, then so be it. But I'm asking whether we can instead handle this specially, instead of adding generic complexity to the primary code paths.
Jon
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Hellström thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 2:48 AM To: Bloomfield, Jon jon.bloomfield@intel.com; Joonas Lahtinen joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com; Intel Graphics Development <intel- gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Auld, Matthew matthew.auld@intel.com; C, Ramalingam ramalingam.c@intel.com; Vetter, Daniel daniel.vetter@intel.com Subject: Re: Small bar recovery vs compressed content on DG2
Hi,
On Thu, 2022-03-17 at 18:21 +0000, Bloomfield, Jon wrote:
+@Vetter, Daniel
Let's not start re-inventing this on the fly again. That's how we got into trouble in the past. The SAS/Whitepaper does currently require the SMEM+LMEM placement for mappable, for good reasons.
Just to avoid any misunderstandings here:
We have two hard requirements from Arch that clash, main problem is compressed bos can't be captured on error with current designs.
From an engineering point of view we can do little more than list options available to resolve this and whether they are hard or not so hard to implemement. But IMHO Arch needs to agree on what's got to give.
Thanks, Thomas
We cannot 'always migrate to mappable in the fault handler'. Or at least, this is not as trivial as it is to write in a sentence due to the need to spill out other active objects, and all the usual challenges with context synchronization etc. It is possible, perhaps with a lot of care, but it is challenging to guarantee, easy to break, and not needed for 99.9% of software. We are trying to simplify our driver stack.
If we need a special mechanism for debug, we should devise a special mechanism, not throw out the general LMEM+SMEM requirement. Are
there
any identified first-class clients that require such access, or is it only debugging tools?
If only debug, then why can't the tool use a copy engine submission to access the data in place? Or perhaps a bespoke ioctl to access this via the KMD (and kmd submitted copy-engine BB)?
Thanks,
Jon
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Hellström thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 2:35 AM To: Joonas Lahtinen joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com; Bloomfield, Jon jon.bloomfield@intel.com; Intel Graphics Development <intel- gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Auld, Matthew matthew.auld@intel.com; C, Ramalingam ramalingam.c@intel.com Subject: Re: Small bar recovery vs compressed content on DG2
On Thu, 2022-03-17 at 10:43 +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > Quoting Thomas Hellström (2022-03-16 09:25:16) > > Hi! > > > > Do we somehow need to clarify in the headers the > > semantics for > > this? > > > > From my understanding when discussing the CCS > > migration series > > with > > Ram, the kernel will never do any resolving > > (compressing / > > decompressing) migrations or evictions which basically > > implies > > the > > following: > > > > *) Compressed data must have LMEM only placement, > > otherwise the GPU > > would read garbage if accessing from SMEM. > > This has always been the case, so it should be documented > in the > uAPI > headers and kerneldocs. > > > *) Compressed data can't be assumed to be mappable by > > the CPU, > > because > > in order to ensure that on small BAR, the placement > > needs to be > > LMEM+SMEM. > > Not strictly true, as we could always migrate to the > mappable > region > in > the CPU fault handler. Will need the same set of tricks > as with > limited > mappable GGTT in past.
In addition to Matt's reply:
Yes, if there is sufficient space. I'm not sure we want to complicate this to migrate only part of the buffer to mappable on a fault basis? Otherwise this is likely to fail.
One option is to allow cpu-mapping from SYSTEM like TTM is doing for evicted buffers, even if SYSTEM is not in the placement list, and then migrate back to LMEM for gpu access.
But can user-space even interpret the compressed data when CPU- mapping? without access to the CCS metadata?
> > > *) Neither can compressed data be part of a CAPTURE > > buffer, > > because > > that > > requires the data to be CPU-mappable. > > Especially this will be too big of a limitation which we > can't > really > afford > when it comes to debugging.
Same here WRT user-space interpretation.
This will become especially tricky on small BAR, because either we need to fit all compressed buffers in the mappable portion, or be able to blit the contents of the capture buffers from within the fence signalling critical section, which will require a lot of work I guess.
/Thomas
> > Regards, Joonas > > > Are we (and user-mode drivers) OK with these > > restrictions, or > > do we > > need > > to rethink? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Thomas > > > >