issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next;
- /* - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list - */ - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || - kthread_should_park()) + if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list); + + /* cancel this job's TO timer */ + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list); - if (next) + + if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp; - + /* start TO timer for next job */ + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); + } } else { job = NULL; - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); }
spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop());
- if (cleanup_job) { + if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); - }
if (!entity) continue;
Am 26.08.21 um 06:55 schrieb Monk Liu:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next;
- /*
* Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread* is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list*/- if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT &&
!cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) ||kthread_should_park())
if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock);
@@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
/* cancel this job's TO timer */cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr);
I'm not sure if the work_tdr is initialized when a maximum timeout is specified. Please double check.
BTW: Can we please drop the "tdr" naming from the scheduler? That is just a timeout functionality and not related to recovery in any way.
We even do not start hardware recovery in a lot of cases now (when wave kill is successfully).
Regards, Christian.
/* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list);
if (next)
if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
/* start TO timer for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}
/* queue timeout for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}
spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock);
@@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop());
if (cleanup_job) {
if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job);
/* queue timeout for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}if (!entity) continue;
[AMD Official Use Only]
I'm not sure if the work_tdr is initialized when a maximum timeout is specified. Please double check.
Ok, will do
BTW: Can we please drop the "tdr" naming from the scheduler? That is just a timeout functionality and not related to recovery in any way.
We even do not start hardware recovery in a lot of cases now (when wave kill is successfully).
Umm, sounds reasonable, I can rename it to "to" with another patch
Thanks
------------------------------------------ Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team ------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 6:09 PM To: Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
Am 26.08.21 um 06:55 schrieb Monk Liu:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next;
- /*
* Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread* is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list*/- if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT &&
!cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) ||kthread_should_park())
if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock);
@@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
/* cancel this job's TO timer */cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr);
I'm not sure if the work_tdr is initialized when a maximum timeout is specified. Please double check.
BTW: Can we please drop the "tdr" naming from the scheduler? That is just a timeout functionality and not related to recovery in any way.
We even do not start hardware recovery in a lot of cases now (when wave kill is successfully).
Regards, Christian.
/* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list);
if (next)
if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
/* start TO timer for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}
/* queue timeout for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}
spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock);
@@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop());
if (cleanup_job) {
if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job);
/* queue timeout for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}if (!entity) continue;
Am 26.08.21 um 13:55 schrieb Liu, Monk:
[AMD Official Use Only]
I'm not sure if the work_tdr is initialized when a maximum timeout is specified. Please double check.
Ok, will do
BTW: Can we please drop the "tdr" naming from the scheduler? That is just a timeout functionality and not related to recovery in any way.
We even do not start hardware recovery in a lot of cases now (when wave kill is successfully).
Umm, sounds reasonable, I can rename it to "to" with another patch
Maybe more like job_timeout or timeout_work or something into that direction.
Christian.
Thanks
Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team
-----Original Message----- From: Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 6:09 PM To: Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
Am 26.08.21 um 06:55 schrieb Monk Liu:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next;
- /*
* Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread* is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list*/- if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT &&
!cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) ||kthread_should_park())
if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock);
@@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
/* cancel this job's TO timer */cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr);I'm not sure if the work_tdr is initialized when a maximum timeout is specified. Please double check.
BTW: Can we please drop the "tdr" naming from the scheduler? That is just a timeout functionality and not related to recovery in any way.
We even do not start hardware recovery in a lot of cases now (when wave kill is successfully).
Regards, Christian.
/* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list);
if (next)
if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
/* start TO timer for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}
/* queue timeout for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}
spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock);
@@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop());
if (cleanup_job) {
if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job);
/* queue timeout for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);} if (!entity) continue;
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 02:37:40PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 26.08.21 um 13:55 schrieb Liu, Monk:
[AMD Official Use Only]
I'm not sure if the work_tdr is initialized when a maximum timeout is specified. Please double check.
Ok, will do
BTW: Can we please drop the "tdr" naming from the scheduler? That is just a timeout functionality and not related to recovery in any way.
We even do not start hardware recovery in a lot of cases now (when wave kill is successfully).
Umm, sounds reasonable, I can rename it to "to" with another patch
Maybe more like job_timeout or timeout_work or something into that direction.
Yeah that's better. TO is even worse I think than TDR, which is at least somewhat well-known from the windows side.
Also would be good to polish the commit message a bit, there's a few typos and confusing wording. -Daniel
Christian.
Thanks
Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team
-----Original Message----- From: Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 6:09 PM To: Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
Am 26.08.21 um 06:55 schrieb Monk Liu:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next;
- /*
* Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread* is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list*/- if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT &&
!cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) ||kthread_should_park())
- if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL; spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock);
@@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
/* cancel this job's TO timer */cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr);I'm not sure if the work_tdr is initialized when a maximum timeout is specified. Please double check.
BTW: Can we please drop the "tdr" naming from the scheduler? That is just a timeout functionality and not related to recovery in any way.
We even do not start hardware recovery in a lot of cases now (when wave kill is successfully).
Regards, Christian.
/* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list);
if (next)
if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
/* start TO timer for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}
/* queue timeout for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);@@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop());
if (cleanup_job) {
if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job);
/* queue timeout for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);} if (!entity) continue;
[AMD Official Use Only]
I'm not sure if the work_tdr is initialized when a maximum timeout is specified. Please double check.
Even timeout set to max the work_tdr is still initialized:
int drm_sched_init(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched, const struct drm_sched_backend_ops *ops, unsigned hw_submission, unsigned hang_limit, long timeout, atomic_t *score, const char *name) { int i, ret; sched->ops = ops; sched->hw_submission_limit = hw_submission; sched->name = name; sched->timeout = timeout; sched->hang_limit = hang_limit; sched->score = score ? score : &sched->_score; for (i = DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_MIN; i < DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_COUNT; i++) drm_sched_rq_init(sched, &sched->sched_rq[i]);
init_waitqueue_head(&sched->wake_up_worker); init_waitqueue_head(&sched->job_scheduled); INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sched->pending_list); spin_lock_init(&sched->job_list_lock); atomic_set(&sched->hw_rq_count, 0); INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&sched->work_tdr, drm_sched_job_timedout); atomic_set(&sched->_score, 0); atomic64_set(&sched->job_id_count, 0);
Thanks
------------------------------------------ Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team ------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 8:38 PM To: Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
Am 26.08.21 um 13:55 schrieb Liu, Monk:
[AMD Official Use Only]
I'm not sure if the work_tdr is initialized when a maximum timeout is specified. Please double check.
Ok, will do
BTW: Can we please drop the "tdr" naming from the scheduler? That is just a timeout functionality and not related to recovery in any way.
We even do not start hardware recovery in a lot of cases now (when wave kill is successfully).
Umm, sounds reasonable, I can rename it to "to" with another patch
Maybe more like job_timeout or timeout_work or something into that direction.
Christian.
Thanks
Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team
-----Original Message----- From: Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 6:09 PM To: Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
Am 26.08.21 um 06:55 schrieb Monk Liu:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next;
- /*
* Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread* is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list*/- if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT &&
!cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) ||kthread_should_park())
if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@
drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
/* cancel this job's TO timer */cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr);I'm not sure if the work_tdr is initialized when a maximum timeout is specified. Please double check.
BTW: Can we please drop the "tdr" naming from the scheduler? That is just a timeout functionality and not related to recovery in any way.
We even do not start hardware recovery in a lot of cases now (when wave kill is successfully).
Regards, Christian.
/* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list);
if (next)
if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
/* start TO timer for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}
/* queue timeout for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}
spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock);
@@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop());
if (cleanup_job) {
if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job);
/* queue timeout for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);} if (!entity) continue;
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next;
- /*
* Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread* is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list*/- if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT &&
!cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) ||kthread_should_park())
- if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
/* cancel this job's TO timer */cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr);
if (next)
if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
/* start TO timer for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}
/* queue timeout for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}
spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock);
@@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop());
if (cleanup_job) {
if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job);
/* queue timeout for next job */drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);}if (!entity) continue;
Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in this thread. Let me know if this makes sense.
Andrey
On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; - /* - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list - */ - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || - kthread_should_park()) + if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
+ /* cancel this job's TO timer */ + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list); - if (next)
+ if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
+ /* start TO timer for next job */ + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); + } } else { job = NULL; - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); } spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop()); - if (cleanup_job) { + if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); - } if (!entity) continue;
I don't think that this will be necessary nor desired.
See the job should be cleaned up as soon as possible after it is finished or otherwise we won't cancel the timeout quick enough either.
Christian.
Am 26.08.21 um 22:14 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in this thread. Let me know if this makes sense.
Andrey
On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; - /* - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list - */ - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || - kthread_should_park()) + if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
+ /* cancel this job's TO timer */ + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list); - if (next)
+ if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
+ /* start TO timer for next job */ + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); + } } else { job = NULL; - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); } spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop()); - if (cleanup_job) { + if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); - } if (!entity) continue;
[AMD Official Use Only]
Yeah, that "kthread_should_park" is also irrelevant looks to me as well and it delays the signaled job's cleanup/free
Thanks
------------------------------------------ Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team ------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 2:12 PM To: Grodzovsky, Andrey Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com; Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Koenig, Christian Christian.Koenig@amd.com Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
I don't think that this will be necessary nor desired.
See the job should be cleaned up as soon as possible after it is finished or otherwise we won't cancel the timeout quick enough either.
Christian.
Am 26.08.21 um 22:14 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in this thread. Let me know if this makes sense.
Andrey
On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; - /* - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list - */ - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || - kthread_should_park()) + if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
+ /* cancel this job's TO timer */ + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list); - if (next)
+ if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
+ /* start TO timer for next job */ + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); + } } else { job = NULL; - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); } spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop()); - if (cleanup_job) { + if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); - } if (!entity) continue;
So we agree if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL should go away ?
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 3:46 a.m., Liu, Monk wrote:
[AMD Official Use Only]
Yeah, that "kthread_should_park" is also irrelevant looks to me as well and it delays the signaled job's cleanup/free
Thanks
Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team
-----Original Message----- From: Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 2:12 PM To: Grodzovsky, Andrey Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com; Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Koenig, Christian Christian.Koenig@amd.com Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
I don't think that this will be necessary nor desired.
See the job should be cleaned up as soon as possible after it is finished or otherwise we won't cancel the timeout quick enough either.
Christian.
Am 26.08.21 um 22:14 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in this thread. Let me know if this makes sense.
Andrey
On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; - /* - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list - */ - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || - kthread_should_park()) + if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
+ /* cancel this job's TO timer */ + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list); - if (next)
+ if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
+ /* start TO timer for next job */ + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); + } } else { job = NULL; - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); } spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop()); - if (cleanup_job) { + if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); - } if (!entity) continue;
Yes, I don't see any good reason for that either.
Christian.
Am 27.08.21 um 15:45 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
So we agree if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL should go away ?
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 3:46 a.m., Liu, Monk wrote:
[AMD Official Use Only]
Yeah, that "kthread_should_park" is also irrelevant looks to me as well and it delays the signaled job's cleanup/free
Thanks
Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team
-----Original Message----- From: Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 2:12 PM To: Grodzovsky, Andrey Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com; Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Koenig, Christian Christian.Koenig@amd.com Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
I don't think that this will be necessary nor desired.
See the job should be cleaned up as soon as possible after it is finished or otherwise we won't cancel the timeout quick enough either.
Christian.
Am 26.08.21 um 22:14 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in this thread. Let me know if this makes sense.
Andrey
On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; - /* - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list - */ - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || - kthread_should_park()) + if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
+ /* cancel this job's TO timer */ + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list); - if (next)
+ if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
+ /* start TO timer for next job */ + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); + } } else { job = NULL; - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); } spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop()); - if (cleanup_job) { + if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); - } if (!entity) continue;
[AMD Official Use Only]
what is that 'ts' representing for ? it looks to me the jiffies that it get scheduled to the ring, but a job scheduled to the ring doesn't represent it's being processed by hw.
Thanks
------------------------------------------ Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team ------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Grodzovsky, Andrey Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 4:14 AM To: Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Koenig, Christian Christian.Koenig@amd.com Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in this thread. Let me know if this makes sense.
Andrey
On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; - /* - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list - */ - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || - kthread_should_park()) + if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
+ /* cancel this job's TO timer */ + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list); - if (next)
+ if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
+ /* start TO timer for next job */ + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); + } } else { job = NULL; - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); } spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop()); - if (cleanup_job) { + if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); - } if (!entity) continue;
The TS represents the point in time when the job was inserted into the pending list. I don't think it matters when it actually starts to be processed, what matters is when this job was inserted into pending list because right at that point you arm the TO timer (when no other is running already) and so when the previous job completes and you cancel and rearm again you can use that TS from the next job in pending list to calculate how much time has actually left for it to run before TDR must be initiated and not just give it again full TO value to run even if it has already been running for a while.
Also, i am not sure also about the assumption that what we measure is processing by HW, what we measure is from the moment it was scheduled to ring to the moment the job completed (EOP event). At least that what our TDR timer measures and so it makes sense to set the TS at this point.
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 3:20 a.m., Liu, Monk wrote:
[AMD Official Use Only]
what is that 'ts' representing for ? it looks to me the jiffies that it get scheduled to the ring, but a job scheduled to the ring doesn't represent it's being processed by hw.
Thanks
Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team
-----Original Message----- From: Grodzovsky, Andrey Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 4:14 AM To: Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Koenig, Christian Christian.Koenig@amd.com Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in this thread. Let me know if this makes sense.
Andrey
On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; - /* - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list - */ - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || - kthread_should_park()) + if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
+ /* cancel this job's TO timer */ + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list); - if (next)
+ if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
+ /* start TO timer for next job */ + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); + } } else { job = NULL; - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); } spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop()); - if (cleanup_job) { + if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); - } if (!entity) continue;
I don't think that makes sense.
See we don't want to start the time when the job is inserted into the ring buffer, but rather when it starts processing.
Starting processing is a bit swampy defined, but just starting the timer when the previous job completes should be fine enough.
Christian.
Am 27.08.21 um 15:57 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
The TS represents the point in time when the job was inserted into the pending list. I don't think it matters when it actually starts to be processed, what matters is when this job was inserted into pending list because right at that point you arm the TO timer (when no other is running already) and so when the previous job completes and you cancel and rearm again you can use that TS from the next job in pending list to calculate how much time has actually left for it to run before TDR must be initiated and not just give it again full TO value to run even if it has already been running for a while.
Also, i am not sure also about the assumption that what we measure is processing by HW, what we measure is from the moment it was scheduled to ring to the moment the job completed (EOP event). At least that what our TDR timer measures and so it makes sense to set the TS at this point.
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 3:20 a.m., Liu, Monk wrote:
[AMD Official Use Only]
what is that 'ts' representing for ? it looks to me the jiffies that it get scheduled to the ring, but a job scheduled to the ring doesn't represent it's being processed by hw.
Thanks
Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team
-----Original Message----- From: Grodzovsky, Andrey Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 4:14 AM To: Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Koenig, Christian Christian.Koenig@amd.com Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in this thread. Let me know if this makes sense.
Andrey
On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; - /* - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list - */ - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || - kthread_should_park()) + if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
+ /* cancel this job's TO timer */ + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list); - if (next)
+ if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
+ /* start TO timer for next job */ + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); + } } else { job = NULL; - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); } spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop()); - if (cleanup_job) { + if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); - } if (!entity) continue;
As I mentioned to Monk before - what about cases such as in this test - https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/commit/bc21168fa924d3fc4a000492e86... Here you don't have serialized sequence where when jobs finishes processing and second starts, they execute together concurrently - for those cases seems to me restarting the timer for the second job from scratch will let it hang much longer then allowed by TO value.
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 10:29 a.m., Christian König wrote:
I don't think that makes sense.
See we don't want to start the time when the job is inserted into the ring buffer, but rather when it starts processing.
Starting processing is a bit swampy defined, but just starting the timer when the previous job completes should be fine enough.
Christian.
Am 27.08.21 um 15:57 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
The TS represents the point in time when the job was inserted into the pending list. I don't think it matters when it actually starts to be processed, what matters is when this job was inserted into pending list because right at that point you arm the TO timer (when no other is running already) and so when the previous job completes and you cancel and rearm again you can use that TS from the next job in pending list to calculate how much time has actually left for it to run before TDR must be initiated and not just give it again full TO value to run even if it has already been running for a while.
Also, i am not sure also about the assumption that what we measure is processing by HW, what we measure is from the moment it was scheduled to ring to the moment the job completed (EOP event). At least that what our TDR timer measures and so it makes sense to set the TS at this point.
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 3:20 a.m., Liu, Monk wrote:
[AMD Official Use Only]
what is that 'ts' representing for ? it looks to me the jiffies that it get scheduled to the ring, but a job scheduled to the ring doesn't represent it's being processed by hw.
Thanks
Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team
-----Original Message----- From: Grodzovsky, Andrey Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 4:14 AM To: Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Koenig, Christian Christian.Koenig@amd.com Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in this thread. Let me know if this makes sense.
Andrey
On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; - /* - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list - */ - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || - kthread_should_park()) + if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
+ /* cancel this job's TO timer */ + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list); - if (next)
+ if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
+ /* start TO timer for next job */ + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); + } } else { job = NULL; - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); } spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop()); - if (cleanup_job) { + if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); - } if (!entity) continue;
Yeah, that's what I meant with that the start of processing a job is a bit swampy defined.
Jobs overload, but we simply don't have another good indicator that a job started except that the previous one completed.
It's still better than starting the timer when pushing the job to the ring buffer, because that is completely off.
Christian.
Am 27.08.21 um 20:22 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
As I mentioned to Monk before - what about cases such as in this test
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/commit/bc21168fa924d3fc4a000492e86...
Here you don't have serialized sequence where when jobs finishes processing and second starts, they execute together concurrently - for those cases seems to me restarting the timer for the second job from scratch will let it hang much longer then allowed by TO value.
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 10:29 a.m., Christian König wrote:
I don't think that makes sense.
See we don't want to start the time when the job is inserted into the ring buffer, but rather when it starts processing.
Starting processing is a bit swampy defined, but just starting the timer when the previous job completes should be fine enough.
Christian.
Am 27.08.21 um 15:57 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
The TS represents the point in time when the job was inserted into the pending list. I don't think it matters when it actually starts to be processed, what matters is when this job was inserted into pending list because right at that point you arm the TO timer (when no other is running already) and so when the previous job completes and you cancel and rearm again you can use that TS from the next job in pending list to calculate how much time has actually left for it to run before TDR must be initiated and not just give it again full TO value to run even if it has already been running for a while.
Also, i am not sure also about the assumption that what we measure is processing by HW, what we measure is from the moment it was scheduled to ring to the moment the job completed (EOP event). At least that what our TDR timer measures and so it makes sense to set the TS at this point.
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 3:20 a.m., Liu, Monk wrote:
[AMD Official Use Only]
what is that 'ts' representing for ? it looks to me the jiffies that it get scheduled to the ring, but a job scheduled to the ring doesn't represent it's being processed by hw.
Thanks
Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team
-----Original Message----- From: Grodzovsky, Andrey Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 4:14 AM To: Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Koenig, Christian Christian.Koenig@amd.com Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in this thread. Let me know if this makes sense.
Andrey
On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote:
issue: in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even the its corresponding job is still running.
fix: do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job we start_timeout again.
v2: further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler.
v3: change the issue description remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin.
TODO: 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization)
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 ++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) { struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; - /* - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR thread - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list - */ - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || - kthread_should_park()) + if (kthread_should_park()) return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { /* remove job from pending_list */ list_del_init(&job->list);
+ /* cancel this job's TO timer */ + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, typeof(*next), list); - if (next)
+ if (next) { next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = job->s_fence->finished.timestamp;
+ /* start TO timer for next job */ + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); + } } else { job = NULL; - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); } spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) (entity = drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || kthread_should_stop()); - if (cleanup_job) { + if (cleanup_job) sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); - /* queue timeout for next job */ - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); - } if (!entity) continue;
Sure then.
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 2:30 p.m., Christian König wrote:
Yeah, that's what I meant with that the start of processing a job is a bit swampy defined.
Jobs overload, but we simply don't have another good indicator that a job started except that the previous one completed.
It's still better than starting the timer when pushing the job to the ring buffer, because that is completely off.
Christian.
Am 27.08.21 um 20:22 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
As I mentioned to Monk before - what about cases such as in this test
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/commit/bc21168fa924d3fc4a000492e86...
Here you don't have serialized sequence where when jobs finishes processing and second starts, they execute together concurrently - for those cases seems to me restarting the timer for the second job from scratch will let it hang much longer then allowed by TO value.
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 10:29 a.m., Christian König wrote:
I don't think that makes sense.
See we don't want to start the time when the job is inserted into the ring buffer, but rather when it starts processing.
Starting processing is a bit swampy defined, but just starting the timer when the previous job completes should be fine enough.
Christian.
Am 27.08.21 um 15:57 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
The TS represents the point in time when the job was inserted into the pending list. I don't think it matters when it actually starts to be processed, what matters is when this job was inserted into pending list because right at that point you arm the TO timer (when no other is running already) and so when the previous job completes and you cancel and rearm again you can use that TS from the next job in pending list to calculate how much time has actually left for it to run before TDR must be initiated and not just give it again full TO value to run even if it has already been running for a while.
Also, i am not sure also about the assumption that what we measure is processing by HW, what we measure is from the moment it was scheduled to ring to the moment the job completed (EOP event). At least that what our TDR timer measures and so it makes sense to set the TS at this point.
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 3:20 a.m., Liu, Monk wrote:
[AMD Official Use Only]
what is that 'ts' representing for ? it looks to me the jiffies that it get scheduled to the ring, but a job scheduled to the ring doesn't represent it's being processed by hw.
Thanks
Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team
-----Original Message----- From: Grodzovsky, Andrey Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 4:14 AM To: Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Koenig, Christian Christian.Koenig@amd.com Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in this thread. Let me know if this makes sense.
Andrey
On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote: > issue: > in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even > the its corresponding job is still running. > > fix: > do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling > only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job > we start_timeout again. > > v2: > further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the > signaled job is the last one in its scheduler. > > v3: > change the issue description > remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job > recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin. > > TODO: > 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the > handling of scheduler and job_timeout. > 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above > serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization) > > Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 > ++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct > drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) > { > struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; > - /* > - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR > thread > - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list > - */ > - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && > - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || > - kthread_should_park()) > + if (kthread_should_park()) > return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
> spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); > @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct > drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) > if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { > /* remove job from pending_list */ > list_del_init(&job->list); > + > + /* cancel this job's TO timer */ > + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); > /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ > next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, > typeof(*next), list); > - if (next) > + > + if (next) { > next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = > job->s_fence->finished.timestamp; > - > + /* start TO timer for next job */ > + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); > + } > } else { > job = NULL; > - /* queue timeout for next job */ > - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); > } > spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); > @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) > (entity = > drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || > kthread_should_stop()); > - if (cleanup_job) { > + if (cleanup_job) > sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); > - /* queue timeout for next job */ > - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); > - } > if (!entity) > continue;
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 08:30:32PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Yeah, that's what I meant with that the start of processing a job is a bit swampy defined.
Jobs overload, but we simply don't have another good indicator that a job started except that the previous one completed.
It's still better than starting the timer when pushing the job to the ring buffer, because that is completely off.
Not sure this matters that much really in practice, and in some cases we might want to actually just reset it all if the built up backlog is way too long.
For anything that really runs way too long you want preempt-ctx/revoke fences anyway, not end-of-cs fences with tdr. -Daniel
Christian.
Am 27.08.21 um 20:22 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
As I mentioned to Monk before - what about cases such as in this test - https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm/-/commit/bc21168fa924d3fc4a000492e86...
Here you don't have serialized sequence where when jobs finishes processing and second starts, they execute together concurrently - for those cases seems to me restarting the timer for the second job from scratch will let it hang much longer then allowed by TO value.
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 10:29 a.m., Christian König wrote:
I don't think that makes sense.
See we don't want to start the time when the job is inserted into the ring buffer, but rather when it starts processing.
Starting processing is a bit swampy defined, but just starting the timer when the previous job completes should be fine enough.
Christian.
Am 27.08.21 um 15:57 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
The TS represents the point in time when the job was inserted into the pending list. I don't think it matters when it actually starts to be processed, what matters is when this job was inserted into pending list because right at that point you arm the TO timer (when no other is running already) and so when the previous job completes and you cancel and rearm again you can use that TS from the next job in pending list to calculate how much time has actually left for it to run before TDR must be initiated and not just give it again full TO value to run even if it has already been running for a while.
Also, i am not sure also about the assumption that what we measure is processing by HW, what we measure is from the moment it was scheduled to ring to the moment the job completed (EOP event). At least that what our TDR timer measures and so it makes sense to set the TS at this point.
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 3:20 a.m., Liu, Monk wrote:
[AMD Official Use Only]
what is that 'ts' representing for ? it looks to me the jiffies that it get scheduled to the ring, but a job scheduled to the ring doesn't represent it's being processed by hw.
Thanks
Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team
-----Original Message----- From: Grodzovsky, Andrey Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 4:14 AM To: Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Koenig, Christian Christian.Koenig@amd.com Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in this thread. Let me know if this makes sense.
Andrey
On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote: > issue: > in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer even > the its corresponding job is still running. > > fix: > do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the cancelling > only when the heading job is signaled, and if there is a "next" job > we start_timeout again. > > v2: > further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling if the > signaled job is the last one in its scheduler. > > v3: > change the issue description > remove the cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job > recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin. > > TODO: > 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to serial the > handling of scheduler and job_timeout. > 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to above > serialization (no race issue anymore with the serialization) > > Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 > ++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct > drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) > { > struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; > - /* > - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is running OR > thread > - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch pending_list > - */ > - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && > - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || > - kthread_should_park()) > + if (kthread_should_park()) > return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
> spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); > @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct > drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) > if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { > /* remove job from pending_list */ > list_del_init(&job->list); > + > + /* cancel this job's TO timer */ > + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); > /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */ > next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, > typeof(*next), list); > - if (next) > + > + if (next) { > next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = > job->s_fence->finished.timestamp; > - > + /* start TO timer for next job */ > + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); > + } > } else { > job = NULL; > - /* queue timeout for next job */ > - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); > } > spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); > @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param) > (entity = > drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || > kthread_should_stop()); > - if (cleanup_job) { > + if (cleanup_job) > sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); > - /* queue timeout for next job */ > - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); > - } > if (!entity) > continue;
[AMD Official Use Only]
That' really matter in practice, when two jobs from different process scheduled to the ring close to each other, if we don't discriminate A from B then B will be considered a bad job due to A's timeout, which will force B's process to exit (e.g.: X server)
Thanks
------------------------------------------ Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team ------------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 9:09 PM To: Koenig, Christian Christian.Koenig@amd.com Cc: Grodzovsky, Andrey Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com; Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com; Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 08:30:32PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Yeah, that's what I meant with that the start of processing a job is a bit swampy defined.
Jobs overload, but we simply don't have another good indicator that a job started except that the previous one completed.
It's still better than starting the timer when pushing the job to the ring buffer, because that is completely off.
Not sure this matters that much really in practice, and in some cases we might want to actually just reset it all if the built up backlog is way too long.
For anything that really runs way too long you want preempt-ctx/revoke fences anyway, not end-of-cs fences with tdr. -Daniel
Christian.
Am 27.08.21 um 20:22 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
As I mentioned to Monk before - what about cases such as in this test - https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgi tlab.freedesktop.org%2Fmesa%2Fdrm%2F-%2Fcommit%2Fbc21168fa924d3fc4a0 00492e861f50a1a135b25&data=04%7C01%7CMonk.Liu%40amd.com%7Cbd1847 4429e34f8eaac208d96c80710e%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C 0%7C637660121179715855%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiL CJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=1WTD3 opiBtT29bbbqJub5nfhWgX5vMNppiFKgWDe%2FoQ%3D&reserved=0
Here you don't have serialized sequence where when jobs finishes processing and second starts, they execute together concurrently - for those cases seems to me restarting the timer for the second job from scratch will let it hang much longer then allowed by TO value.
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 10:29 a.m., Christian König wrote:
I don't think that makes sense.
See we don't want to start the time when the job is inserted into the ring buffer, but rather when it starts processing.
Starting processing is a bit swampy defined, but just starting the timer when the previous job completes should be fine enough.
Christian.
Am 27.08.21 um 15:57 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
The TS represents the point in time when the job was inserted into the pending list. I don't think it matters when it actually starts to be processed, what matters is when this job was inserted into pending list because right at that point you arm the TO timer (when no other is running already) and so when the previous job completes and you cancel and rearm again you can use that TS from the next job in pending list to calculate how much time has actually left for it to run before TDR must be initiated and not just give it again full TO value to run even if it has already been running for a while.
Also, i am not sure also about the assumption that what we measure is processing by HW, what we measure is from the moment it was scheduled to ring to the moment the job completed (EOP event). At least that what our TDR timer measures and so it makes sense to set the TS at this point.
Andrey
On 2021-08-27 3:20 a.m., Liu, Monk wrote:
[AMD Official Use Only]
what is that 'ts' representing for ? it looks to me the jiffies that it get scheduled to the ring, but a job scheduled to the ring doesn't represent it's being processed by hw.
Thanks
Monk Liu | Cloud-GPU Core team
-----Original Message----- From: Grodzovsky, Andrey Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 4:14 AM To: Liu, Monk Monk.Liu@amd.com; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Koenig, Christian Christian.Koenig@amd.com Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: fix the bug of time out calculation(v3)
Attached quick patch for per job TTL calculation to make more precises next timer expiration. It's on top of the patch in this thread. Let me know if this makes sense.
Andrey
On 2021-08-26 10:03 a.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 2021-08-26 12:55 a.m., Monk Liu wrote: > issue: > in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO > timer even the its corresponding job is still running. > > fix: > do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the > cancelling only when the heading job is signaled, and if > there is a "next" job we start_timeout again. > > v2: > further cleanup the logic, and do the TDR timer cancelling > if the signaled job is the last one in its scheduler. > > v3: > change the issue description remove the > cancel_delayed_work in the begining of the cleanup_job > recover the implement of drm_sched_job_begin. > > TODO: > 1)introduce pause/resume scheduler in job_timeout to > serial the handling of scheduler and job_timeout. > 2)drop the bad job's del and insert in scheduler due to > above serialization (no race issue anymore with the > serialization) > > Signed-off-by: Monk Liu Monk.Liu@amd.com > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 25 > ++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > index a2a9536..ecf8140 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c > @@ -676,13 +676,7 @@ drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct > drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) > { > struct drm_sched_job *job, *next; > - /* > - * Don't destroy jobs while the timeout worker is > running OR thread > - * is being parked and hence assumed to not touch > pending_list > - */ > - if ((sched->timeout != MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT && > - !cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr)) || > - kthread_should_park()) > + if (kthread_should_park()) > return NULL;
I actually don't see why we need to keep the above, on the other side (in drm_sched_stop) we won't touch the pending list anyway until sched thread came to full stop (kthread_park). If you do see a reason why this needed then a comment should be here i think.
Andrey
> spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock); @@ -693,17 +687,21 @@ > drm_sched_get_cleanup_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched) > if (job && > dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) { > /* remove job from pending_list */ > list_del_init(&job->list); > + > + /* cancel this job's TO timer */ > + cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr); > /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate > */ > next = > list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list, > typeof(*next), list); > - if (next) > + > + if (next) { > next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp = > job->s_fence->finished.timestamp; > - > + /* start TO timer for next job */ > + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); > + } > } else { > job = NULL; > - /* queue timeout for next job */ > - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); > } > spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock); > @@ -791,11 +789,8 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void > *param) > (entity = > drm_sched_select_entity(sched))) || > kthread_should_stop()); > - if (cleanup_job) { > + if (cleanup_job) > sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job); > - /* queue timeout for next job */ > - drm_sched_start_timeout(sched); > - } > if (!entity) > continue;
-- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.ffwll....
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Andrey Grodzovsky -
Christian König -
Christian König -
Daniel Vetter -
Liu, Monk -
Monk Liu