[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers
On Mon 25-06-18 10:01:03, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 22-06-18 16:09:06, Felix Kuehling wrote: > > On 2018-06-22 11:24 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Fri 22-06-18 17:13:02, Christian König wrote: > > >> Hi Michal, > > >> > > >> [Adding Felix as well] > > >> > > >> Well first of all you have a misconception why at least the AMD graphics > > >> driver need to be able to sleep in an MMU notifier: We need to sleep > > >> because > > >> we need to wait for hardware operations to finish and *NOT* because we > > >> need > > >> to wait for locks. > > >> > > >> I'm not sure if your flag now means that you generally can't sleep in MMU > > >> notifiers any more, but if that's the case at least AMD hardware will > > >> break > > >> badly. In our case the approach of waiting for a short time for the > > >> process > > >> to be reaped and then select another victim actually sounds like the > > >> right > > >> thing to do. > > > Well, I do not need to make the notifier code non blocking all the time. > > > All I need is to ensure that it won't sleep if the flag says so and > > > return -EAGAIN instead. > > > > > > So here is what I do for amdgpu: > > > > In the case of KFD we also need to take the DQM lock: > > > > amdgpu_mn_invalidate_range_start_hsa -> amdgpu_amdkfd_evict_userptr -> > > kgd2kfd_quiesce_mm -> kfd_process_evict_queues -> evict_process_queues_cpsch > > > > So we'd need to pass the blockable parameter all the way through that > > call chain. > > Thanks, I have missed that part. So I guess I will start with something > similar to intel-gfx and back off when the current range needs some > treatment. So this on top. Does it look correct? > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.c > index d138a526feff..e2d422b3eb0b 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.c > @@ -266,6 +266,11 @@ static int amdgpu_mn_invalidate_range_start_hsa(struct > mmu_notifier *mn, > struct amdgpu_mn_node *node; > struct amdgpu_bo *bo; > > + if (!blockable) { > + amdgpu_mn_read_unlock(); > + return -EAGAIN; > + } > + > node = container_of(it, struct amdgpu_mn_node, it); > it = interval_tree_iter_next(it, start, end); Ble, just noticed that half of the change didn't get to git index... This is what I have commit c4701b36ac2802b903db3d05cf77c030fccce3a8 Author: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon Jun 25 15:24:03 2018 +0200 fold me - amd gpu notifiers can sleep deeper in the callchain (evict_process_queues_cpsch on a lock and amdgpu_mn_invalidate_node on unbound timeout) make sure we bail out when we have an intersecting range for starter diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.c index d138a526feff..3399a4a927fb 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.c @@ -225,6 +225,11 @@ static int amdgpu_mn_invalidate_range_start_gfx(struct mmu_notifier *mn, while (it) { struct amdgpu_mn_node *node; + if (!blockable) { + amdgpu_mn_read_unlock(rmn); + return -EAGAIN; + } + node = container_of(it, struct amdgpu_mn_node, it); it = interval_tree_iter_next(it, start, end); @@ -266,6 +271,11 @@ static int amdgpu_mn_invalidate_range_start_hsa(struct mmu_notifier *mn, struct amdgpu_mn_node *node; struct amdgpu_bo *bo; + if (!blockable) { + amdgpu_mn_read_unlock(rmn); + return -EAGAIN; + } + node = container_of(it, struct amdgpu_mn_node, it); it = interval_tree_iter_next(it, start, end); -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |