On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 08:55:39AM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 08:56:52AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 23/11/2021 19:52, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:39:25AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 17/11/2021 22:49, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
From: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Everytime we come to the end of a virtual engine's context, re-randomise it's siblings[]. As we schedule the siblings' tasklets in the order they are in the array, earlier entries are executed first (when idle) and so will be preferred when scheduling the next virtual request. Currently, we only update the array when switching onto a new idle engine, so we prefer to stick on the last execute engine, keeping the work compact. However, it can be beneficial to spread the work out across idle engines, so choose another sibling as our preferred target at the end of the context's execution.
This partially brings back, from a different angle, the more dynamic scheduling behavior which has been lost since bugfix 90a987205c6c ("drm/i915/gt: Only swap to a random sibling once upon creation").
Shouldn't we use the Fixes tag here since this is targeting to fix one of the performance regressions of this patch?
Probably not but hard to say. Note that it wasn't a performance regression that was reported but power.
And to go back to what we said elsewhere in the thread, I am actually with you in thinking that in the ideal world we need PnP testing across a variety of workloads and platforms. And "in the ideal world" should really be in the normal world. It is not professional to be reactive to isolated bug reports from users, without being able to see the overall picture.
We surely need to address the bug report from users. I'm just asking to address that with the smallest fix that we can backport and fit to the products milestones.
Instead, we are creating another optimization feature on a rush. Without a proper validation.
I believe it is too risk to add an algorithm like that without a broader test. I see a big risk of introducing corner cases that will results in more bug report from other users in a near future.
So, let's all be professionals and provide a smaller fix for a regression on the load balancing scenario and provide a better validation with more data to justify this new feature.
Okay, after more IRC discussions I see that patch 2 is also part of the solution and probably safe.
Let me be clear that my biggest complain and the risk is with race-to-idle in patch 3 on trying to predict the rc6 behavior and increasing the freq to try to complete job faster and then get to rc6 faster... That one would need a lot more validation.
Thanks, Rodrigo.
One day we could experiment with using engine busyness as criteria (instead of random). Back in the day busyness was kind of the best strategy, although sampled at submit, not at the trailing edge like here, but it still may be able to settle down to engine configuration better in some scenarios. Only testing could say.
Still, from memory random also wasn't that bad so this should be okay for now.
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com
Since you reviewed and it looks to be a middle ground point in terms of when to balancing (always like in the initial implementation vs only once like the in 90a987205c6c).
If this one is really fixing the regression by itself: Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi rodrigo.vivi@intel.com on this patch here.
But I still don't want to take the risk with touching the freq with race to idle, until not convinced that it is absolutely needed and that we are not breaking the world out there.
Yes agreed in principle, we have users with different priorities.
However the RPS patches in the series, definitely the 1st one which looks at classes versus individual engines, sound plausible to me. Given the absence of automated PnP testing mentioned above, in the past it was usually Chris who was making the above and beyond effort to evaluate changes like these on as many platforms as he could, and with different workloads. Not sure who has the mandate and drive to fill that space but something will need to happen.
Regards,
Tvrtko
Regards,
Tvrtko
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk Cc: Vinay Belgaumkar vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com
.../drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 80 ++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c index ca03880fa7e4..b95bbc8fb91a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c @@ -539,6 +539,41 @@ static void execlists_schedule_in(struct i915_request *rq, int idx) GEM_BUG_ON(intel_context_inflight(ce) != rq->engine); } +static void virtual_xfer_context(struct virtual_engine *ve,
struct intel_engine_cs *engine)+{
- unsigned int n;
- if (likely(engine == ve->siblings[0]))
return;- if (!intel_engine_has_relative_mmio(engine))
lrc_update_offsets(&ve->context, engine);- /*
* Move the bound engine to the top of the list for* future execution. We then kick this tasklet first* before checking others, so that we preferentially* reuse this set of bound registers.*/- for (n = 1; n < ve->num_siblings; n++) {
if (ve->siblings[n] == engine) {swap(ve->siblings[n], ve->siblings[0]);break;}- }
+}
+static int ve_random_sibling(struct virtual_engine *ve) +{
- return prandom_u32_max(ve->num_siblings);
+}
+static int ve_random_other_sibling(struct virtual_engine *ve) +{
- return 1 + prandom_u32_max(ve->num_siblings - 1);
+}
- static void resubmit_virtual_request(struct i915_request *rq, struct virtual_engine *ve) {
@@ -578,8 +613,23 @@ static void kick_siblings(struct i915_request *rq, struct intel_context *ce) rq->execution_mask != engine->mask) resubmit_virtual_request(rq, ve);
- if (READ_ONCE(ve->request))
- /*
* Reschedule with a new "preferred" sibling.** The tasklets are executed in the order of ve->siblings[], so* siblings[0] receives preferrential treatment of greedily checking* for execution of the virtual engine. At this point, the virtual* engine is no longer in the current GPU cache due to idleness or* contention, so it can be executed on any without penalty. We* re-randomise at this point in order to spread light loads across* the system, heavy overlapping loads will continue to be greedily* executed by the first available engine.*/- if (READ_ONCE(ve->request)) {
virtual_xfer_context(ve,ve->siblings[ve_random_other_sibling(ve)]); tasklet_hi_schedule(&ve->base.sched_engine->tasklet);- } } static void __execlists_schedule_out(struct i915_request * const rq,
@@ -1030,32 +1080,6 @@ first_virtual_engine(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) return NULL; } -static void virtual_xfer_context(struct virtual_engine *ve,
struct intel_engine_cs *engine)-{
- unsigned int n;
- if (likely(engine == ve->siblings[0]))
return;- GEM_BUG_ON(READ_ONCE(ve->context.inflight));
- if (!intel_engine_has_relative_mmio(engine))
lrc_update_offsets(&ve->context, engine);- /*
* Move the bound engine to the top of the list for* future execution. We then kick this tasklet first* before checking others, so that we preferentially* reuse this set of bound registers.*/- for (n = 1; n < ve->num_siblings; n++) {
if (ve->siblings[n] == engine) {swap(ve->siblings[n], ve->siblings[0]);break;}- }
-}
- static void defer_request(struct i915_request *rq, struct list_head * const pl) { LIST_HEAD(list);
@@ -3590,7 +3614,7 @@ static void virtual_engine_initial_hint(struct virtual_engine *ve) * NB This does not force us to execute on this engine, it will just * typically be the first we inspect for submission. */
- swp = prandom_u32_max(ve->num_siblings);
- swp = ve_random_sibling(ve); if (swp) swap(ve->siblings[swp], ve->siblings[0]); }