| Message ID | 20220307143707.3687-1-Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series |
"drm: remove min_order BUG_ON check"
( rev:
1
)
in
Intel GFX |
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c index 72f52f293249..ed94c56b720f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c @@ -669,10 +669,11 @@ int drm_buddy_alloc_blocks(struct drm_buddy *mm, order = fls(pages) - 1; min_order = ilog2(min_page_size) - ilog2(mm->chunk_size); + BUG_ON(order < min_order); + do { order = min(order, (unsigned int)fls(pages) - 1); BUG_ON(order > mm->max_order); - BUG_ON(order < min_order); do { if (flags & DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION)
On Mon, 07 Mar 2022, Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com> wrote: > place BUG_ON(order < min_order) outside do..while > loop as it fails Unigine Heaven benchmark. > > Unigine Heaven has buffer allocation requests for > example required pages are 161 and alignment request > is 128. To allocate the remaining 33 pages, continues > the iteration to find the order value which is 5 and > when it compares with min_order = 7, enables the > BUG_ON(). To avoid this problem, placed the BUG_ON > check outside of do..while loop. How about turning these BUG_ON()s to WARN_ON()s with an error return? What's the point in oopsing? BR, Jani. > > Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c > index 72f52f293249..ed94c56b720f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c > @@ -669,10 +669,11 @@ int drm_buddy_alloc_blocks(struct drm_buddy *mm, > order = fls(pages) - 1; > min_order = ilog2(min_page_size) - ilog2(mm->chunk_size); > > + BUG_ON(order < min_order); > + > do { > order = min(order, (unsigned int)fls(pages) - 1); > BUG_ON(order > mm->max_order); > - BUG_ON(order < min_order); > > do { > if (flags & DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION) > > base-commit: 8025c79350b90e5a8029234d433578f12abbae2b
Am 07.03.22 um 15:37 schrieb Arunpravin: > place BUG_ON(order < min_order) outside do..while > loop as it fails Unigine Heaven benchmark. > > Unigine Heaven has buffer allocation requests for > example required pages are 161 and alignment request > is 128. To allocate the remaining 33 pages, continues > the iteration to find the order value which is 5 and > when it compares with min_order = 7, enables the > BUG_ON(). To avoid this problem, placed the BUG_ON > check outside of do..while loop. Well using BUG_ON sounds like the wrong approach in the first place. A BUG_ON() is only justified if you prevent further data corruption, e.g. when you detect for example a reference count overflow or similar. In all other cases you should trigger a WARN_ON() and abort the operation with -EINVAL if possible. Regards, Christian. > > Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c > index 72f52f293249..ed94c56b720f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c > @@ -669,10 +669,11 @@ int drm_buddy_alloc_blocks(struct drm_buddy *mm, > order = fls(pages) - 1; > min_order = ilog2(min_page_size) - ilog2(mm->chunk_size); > > + BUG_ON(order < min_order); > + > do { > order = min(order, (unsigned int)fls(pages) - 1); > BUG_ON(order > mm->max_order); > - BUG_ON(order < min_order); > > do { > if (flags & DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION) > > base-commit: 8025c79350b90e5a8029234d433578f12abbae2b
On 07/03/2022 14:37, Arunpravin wrote: > place BUG_ON(order < min_order) outside do..while > loop as it fails Unigine Heaven benchmark. > > Unigine Heaven has buffer allocation requests for > example required pages are 161 and alignment request > is 128. To allocate the remaining 33 pages, continues > the iteration to find the order value which is 5 and > when it compares with min_order = 7, enables the > BUG_ON(). To avoid this problem, placed the BUG_ON > check outside of do..while loop. > > Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c > index 72f52f293249..ed94c56b720f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c > @@ -669,10 +669,11 @@ int drm_buddy_alloc_blocks(struct drm_buddy *mm, > order = fls(pages) - 1; > min_order = ilog2(min_page_size) - ilog2(mm->chunk_size); > > + BUG_ON(order < min_order); Isn't the issue that we are allowing a size that is not aligned to the requested min_page_size? Should we not fix the caller(and throw a normal error here), or perhaps add the round_up() here instead? i.e if someone does: alloc_blocks(mm, 0, end, 4096, 1<<16, &blocks, flags); This will still trigger the BUG_ON() even if we move it out of the loop, AFAICT. > + > do { > order = min(order, (unsigned int)fls(pages) - 1); > BUG_ON(order > mm->max_order); > - BUG_ON(order < min_order); > > do { > if (flags & DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION) > > base-commit: 8025c79350b90e5a8029234d433578f12abbae2b
On 07/03/22 10:11 pm, Matthew Auld wrote: > On 07/03/2022 14:37, Arunpravin wrote: >> place BUG_ON(order < min_order) outside do..while >> loop as it fails Unigine Heaven benchmark. >> >> Unigine Heaven has buffer allocation requests for >> example required pages are 161 and alignment request >> is 128. To allocate the remaining 33 pages, continues >> the iteration to find the order value which is 5 and >> when it compares with min_order = 7, enables the >> BUG_ON(). To avoid this problem, placed the BUG_ON >> check outside of do..while loop. >> >> Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >> index 72f52f293249..ed94c56b720f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >> @@ -669,10 +669,11 @@ int drm_buddy_alloc_blocks(struct drm_buddy *mm, >> order = fls(pages) - 1; >> min_order = ilog2(min_page_size) - ilog2(mm->chunk_size); >> >> + BUG_ON(order < min_order); > > Isn't the issue that we are allowing a size that is not aligned to the > requested min_page_size? Should we not fix the caller(and throw a normal > error here), or perhaps add the round_up() here instead? > CASE 1: when size is not aligned to the requested min_page_size, for instance, required size = 161 pages, min_page_size = 128 pages, here we have 3 possible options, a. AFAIK,This kind of situation is common in any workload,the first allocation (i.e) 128 pages is aligned to min_page_size, Should we just allocate the left over 33 pages (2 pow 5, 2 pow 0) since the caller does know the left over pages are not in min_page_size alignment? b. There are many such instances in unigine heaven workload (there would be many such workloads), throwing a normal error would lower the FPS? is it possible to fix at caller application? c. adding the round_up() is possible, but in every such instances we end up allocating extra unused memory. For example, if required pages = 1028 and min_page_size = 1024 pages, we end up round up of left over 4 pages to the min_page_size, so the total size would be 2048 pages. > i.e if someone does: > > alloc_blocks(mm, 0, end, 4096, 1<<16, &blocks, flags); CASE 2: I think this case should be detected (i.e) when min_page_size > size, should we return -EINVAL? > > This will still trigger the BUG_ON() even if we move it out of the loop, > AFAICT. > Should we just allow the CASE 1 proceed for the allocation and return -EINVAL for the CASE 2? >> + >> do { >> order = min(order, (unsigned int)fls(pages) - 1); >> BUG_ON(order > mm->max_order); >> - BUG_ON(order < min_order); >> >> do { >> if (flags & DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION) >> >> base-commit: 8025c79350b90e5a8029234d433578f12abbae2b
On 07/03/22 9:23 pm, Christian König wrote: > Am 07.03.22 um 15:37 schrieb Arunpravin: >> place BUG_ON(order < min_order) outside do..while >> loop as it fails Unigine Heaven benchmark. >> >> Unigine Heaven has buffer allocation requests for >> example required pages are 161 and alignment request >> is 128. To allocate the remaining 33 pages, continues >> the iteration to find the order value which is 5 and >> when it compares with min_order = 7, enables the >> BUG_ON(). To avoid this problem, placed the BUG_ON >> check outside of do..while loop. > > Well using BUG_ON sounds like the wrong approach in the first place. > > A BUG_ON() is only justified if you prevent further data corruption, > e.g. when you detect for example a reference count overflow or similar. > > In all other cases you should trigger a WARN_ON() and abort the > operation with -EINVAL if possible. > > Regards, > Christian. > ok, in this case, I think it is acceptable to use WARN_ON and abort using -EINVAL Regards, Arun >> >> Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >> index 72f52f293249..ed94c56b720f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >> @@ -669,10 +669,11 @@ int drm_buddy_alloc_blocks(struct drm_buddy *mm, >> order = fls(pages) - 1; >> min_order = ilog2(min_page_size) - ilog2(mm->chunk_size); >> >> + BUG_ON(order < min_order); >> + >> do { >> order = min(order, (unsigned int)fls(pages) - 1); >> BUG_ON(order > mm->max_order); >> - BUG_ON(order < min_order); >> >> do { >> if (flags & DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION) >> >> base-commit: 8025c79350b90e5a8029234d433578f12abbae2b >
On 07/03/22 8:15 pm, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 07 Mar 2022, Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com> wrote: >> place BUG_ON(order < min_order) outside do..while >> loop as it fails Unigine Heaven benchmark. >> >> Unigine Heaven has buffer allocation requests for >> example required pages are 161 and alignment request >> is 128. To allocate the remaining 33 pages, continues >> the iteration to find the order value which is 5 and >> when it compares with min_order = 7, enables the >> BUG_ON(). To avoid this problem, placed the BUG_ON >> check outside of do..while loop. > > How about turning these BUG_ON()s to WARN_ON()s with an error return? > What's the point in oopsing? > yes, we will use WARN_ON with an error return Thanks, Arun > BR, > Jani. > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >> index 72f52f293249..ed94c56b720f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >> @@ -669,10 +669,11 @@ int drm_buddy_alloc_blocks(struct drm_buddy *mm, >> order = fls(pages) - 1; >> min_order = ilog2(min_page_size) - ilog2(mm->chunk_size); >> >> + BUG_ON(order < min_order); >> + >> do { >> order = min(order, (unsigned int)fls(pages) - 1); >> BUG_ON(order > mm->max_order); >> - BUG_ON(order < min_order); >> >> do { >> if (flags & DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION) >> >> base-commit: 8025c79350b90e5a8029234d433578f12abbae2b >
On 08/03/2022 13:59, Arunpravin wrote: > > > On 07/03/22 10:11 pm, Matthew Auld wrote: >> On 07/03/2022 14:37, Arunpravin wrote: >>> place BUG_ON(order < min_order) outside do..while >>> loop as it fails Unigine Heaven benchmark. >>> >>> Unigine Heaven has buffer allocation requests for >>> example required pages are 161 and alignment request >>> is 128. To allocate the remaining 33 pages, continues >>> the iteration to find the order value which is 5 and >>> when it compares with min_order = 7, enables the >>> BUG_ON(). To avoid this problem, placed the BUG_ON >>> check outside of do..while loop. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c | 3 ++- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >>> index 72f52f293249..ed94c56b720f 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >>> @@ -669,10 +669,11 @@ int drm_buddy_alloc_blocks(struct drm_buddy *mm, >>> order = fls(pages) - 1; >>> min_order = ilog2(min_page_size) - ilog2(mm->chunk_size); >>> >>> + BUG_ON(order < min_order); >> >> Isn't the issue that we are allowing a size that is not aligned to the >> requested min_page_size? Should we not fix the caller(and throw a normal >> error here), or perhaps add the round_up() here instead? >> > CASE 1: > when size is not aligned to the requested min_page_size, for instance, > required size = 161 pages, min_page_size = 128 pages, here we have 3 > possible options, > a. AFAIK,This kind of situation is common in any workload,the first > allocation (i.e) 128 pages is aligned to min_page_size, Should we just > allocate the left over 33 pages (2 pow 5, 2 pow 0) since the caller does > know the left over pages are not in min_page_size alignment? So IIUC looking at amdgpu_gem_create_ioctl(), userspace can specify some arbitrary physical alignment for an object? Is that not meant to apply to every page/chunk? The above example would only have the correct physical alignment guaranteed for the first chunk, or so, is this the expected ABI behaviour? Also looking at this some more, the other related bug here is the order-- == min_order check, since it now won't bail when order == 0, leading to order = -1, if we are unlucky... Originally, if asking for min_page_size > chunk_size, then the allocation was meant to fail if it can't fill the resource request with pages of at least that size(and also alignment). Or at least that was the original meaning in i915 IIRC. > > b. There are many such instances in unigine heaven workload (there would > be many such workloads), throwing a normal error would lower the FPS? is > it possible to fix at caller application? > > c. adding the round_up() is possible, but in every such instances we end > up allocating extra unused memory. For example, if required pages = 1028 > and min_page_size = 1024 pages, we end up round up of left over 4 pages > to the min_page_size, so the total size would be 2048 pages. > >> i.e if someone does: >> >> alloc_blocks(mm, 0, end, 4096, 1<<16, &blocks, flags); > CASE 2: > I think this case should be detected (i.e) when min_page_size > size, > should we return -EINVAL? >> >> This will still trigger the BUG_ON() even if we move it out of the loop, >> AFAICT. >> > > Should we just allow the CASE 1 proceed for the allocation and return > -EINVAL for the CASE 2? > >>> + >>> do { >>> order = min(order, (unsigned int)fls(pages) - 1); >>> BUG_ON(order > mm->max_order); >>> - BUG_ON(order < min_order); >>> >>> do { >>> if (flags & DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION) >>> >>> base-commit: 8025c79350b90e5a8029234d433578f12abbae2b
On 08/03/22 10:31 pm, Matthew Auld wrote: > On 08/03/2022 13:59, Arunpravin wrote: >> >> >> On 07/03/22 10:11 pm, Matthew Auld wrote: >>> On 07/03/2022 14:37, Arunpravin wrote: >>>> place BUG_ON(order < min_order) outside do..while >>>> loop as it fails Unigine Heaven benchmark. >>>> >>>> Unigine Heaven has buffer allocation requests for >>>> example required pages are 161 and alignment request >>>> is 128. To allocate the remaining 33 pages, continues >>>> the iteration to find the order value which is 5 and >>>> when it compares with min_order = 7, enables the >>>> BUG_ON(). To avoid this problem, placed the BUG_ON >>>> check outside of do..while loop. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c | 3 ++- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >>>> index 72f52f293249..ed94c56b720f 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >>>> @@ -669,10 +669,11 @@ int drm_buddy_alloc_blocks(struct drm_buddy *mm, >>>> order = fls(pages) - 1; >>>> min_order = ilog2(min_page_size) - ilog2(mm->chunk_size); >>>> >>>> + BUG_ON(order < min_order); >>> >>> Isn't the issue that we are allowing a size that is not aligned to the >>> requested min_page_size? Should we not fix the caller(and throw a normal >>> error here), or perhaps add the round_up() here instead? >>> >> CASE 1: >> when size is not aligned to the requested min_page_size, for instance, >> required size = 161 pages, min_page_size = 128 pages, here we have 3 >> possible options, >> a. AFAIK,This kind of situation is common in any workload,the first >> allocation (i.e) 128 pages is aligned to min_page_size, Should we just >> allocate the left over 33 pages (2 pow 5, 2 pow 0) since the caller does >> know the left over pages are not in min_page_size alignment? > > So IIUC looking at amdgpu_gem_create_ioctl(), userspace can specify some > arbitrary physical alignment for an object? Is that not meant to apply > to every page/chunk? The above example would only have the correct > physical alignment guaranteed for the first chunk, or so, is this the > expected ABI behaviour? > I gone through the function amdgpu_gem_create_ioctl(), it reads the physical alignment in bytes from userspace, does i915 round up the size value to the alignment or does i915 fails the allocation request if size is not aligned with min_page_size? If not, I think running unigine heaven or similar benchmark triggers BUG_ON() on current version of drm buddy > Also looking at this some more, the other related bug here is the > order-- == min_order check, since it now won't bail when order == 0, > leading to order = -1, if we are unlucky... will add a fix > > Originally, if asking for min_page_size > chunk_size, then the > allocation was meant to fail if it can't fill the resource request with > pages of at least that size(and also alignment). Or at least that was > the original meaning in i915 IIRC. we can follow the same here too, failing the allocation request if size is not aligned with min_page_size? I added a debug print for requested num_pages from userspace and its alignment request and executed unigine heaven, I see many such instances where min_page_size is not aligned to the size, how i915 handles such requests? > >> >> b. There are many such instances in unigine heaven workload (there would >> be many such workloads), throwing a normal error would lower the FPS? is >> it possible to fix at caller application? >> >> c. adding the round_up() is possible, but in every such instances we end >> up allocating extra unused memory. For example, if required pages = 1028 >> and min_page_size = 1024 pages, we end up round up of left over 4 pages >> to the min_page_size, so the total size would be 2048 pages. >> >>> i.e if someone does: >>> >>> alloc_blocks(mm, 0, end, 4096, 1<<16, &blocks, flags); >> CASE 2: >> I think this case should be detected (i.e) when min_page_size > size, >> should we return -EINVAL? >>> >>> This will still trigger the BUG_ON() even if we move it out of the loop, >>> AFAICT. >>> >> >> Should we just allow the CASE 1 proceed for the allocation and return >> -EINVAL for the CASE 2? >> >>>> + >>>> do { >>>> order = min(order, (unsigned int)fls(pages) - 1); >>>> BUG_ON(order > mm->max_order); >>>> - BUG_ON(order < min_order); >>>> >>>> do { >>>> if (flags & DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION) >>>> >>>> base-commit: 8025c79350b90e5a8029234d433578f12abbae2b
On 10/03/2022 14:47, Arunpravin wrote: > > > On 08/03/22 10:31 pm, Matthew Auld wrote: >> On 08/03/2022 13:59, Arunpravin wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 07/03/22 10:11 pm, Matthew Auld wrote: >>>> On 07/03/2022 14:37, Arunpravin wrote: >>>>> place BUG_ON(order < min_order) outside do..while >>>>> loop as it fails Unigine Heaven benchmark. >>>>> >>>>> Unigine Heaven has buffer allocation requests for >>>>> example required pages are 161 and alignment request >>>>> is 128. To allocate the remaining 33 pages, continues >>>>> the iteration to find the order value which is 5 and >>>>> when it compares with min_order = 7, enables the >>>>> BUG_ON(). To avoid this problem, placed the BUG_ON >>>>> check outside of do..while loop. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c | 3 ++- >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >>>>> index 72f52f293249..ed94c56b720f 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >>>>> @@ -669,10 +669,11 @@ int drm_buddy_alloc_blocks(struct drm_buddy *mm, >>>>> order = fls(pages) - 1; >>>>> min_order = ilog2(min_page_size) - ilog2(mm->chunk_size); >>>>> >>>>> + BUG_ON(order < min_order); >>>> >>>> Isn't the issue that we are allowing a size that is not aligned to the >>>> requested min_page_size? Should we not fix the caller(and throw a normal >>>> error here), or perhaps add the round_up() here instead? >>>> >>> CASE 1: >>> when size is not aligned to the requested min_page_size, for instance, >>> required size = 161 pages, min_page_size = 128 pages, here we have 3 >>> possible options, >>> a. AFAIK,This kind of situation is common in any workload,the first >>> allocation (i.e) 128 pages is aligned to min_page_size, Should we just >>> allocate the left over 33 pages (2 pow 5, 2 pow 0) since the caller does >>> know the left over pages are not in min_page_size alignment? >> >> So IIUC looking at amdgpu_gem_create_ioctl(), userspace can specify some >> arbitrary physical alignment for an object? Is that not meant to apply >> to every page/chunk? The above example would only have the correct >> physical alignment guaranteed for the first chunk, or so, is this the >> expected ABI behaviour? >> > I gone through the function amdgpu_gem_create_ioctl(), it reads the > physical alignment in bytes from userspace, does i915 round up the size > value to the alignment or does i915 fails the allocation request if size > is not aligned with min_page_size? If not, I think running unigine > heaven or similar benchmark triggers BUG_ON() on current version of drm > buddy i915 will always round_up the obj->base.size as per the default_page_size. But in our case the default_page_size is selected by the kernel, which is always either PAGE_SIZE, or 64K on some platforms, due to the HW having some minimum GPU page-size for mapping VRAM pages. We don't currently have anything similar to amdgpu_gem_create_in.alignment, where userspace can request some arbitrary physical alignment. >> Also looking at this some more, the other related bug here is the >> order-- == min_order check, since it now won't bail when order == 0, >> leading to order = -1, if we are unlucky... > will add a fix >> >> Originally, if asking for min_page_size > chunk_size, then the >> allocation was meant to fail if it can't fill the resource request with >> pages of at least that size(and also alignment). Or at least that was >> the original meaning in i915 IIRC. > we can follow the same here too, failing the allocation request if size > is not aligned with min_page_size? Yeah, seems reasonable to me. > > I added a debug print for requested num_pages from userspace and its > alignment request and executed unigine heaven, I see many such instances > where min_page_size is not aligned to the size, how i915 handles such > requests? >> >>> >>> b. There are many such instances in unigine heaven workload (there would >>> be many such workloads), throwing a normal error would lower the FPS? is >>> it possible to fix at caller application? >>> >>> c. adding the round_up() is possible, but in every such instances we end >>> up allocating extra unused memory. For example, if required pages = 1028 >>> and min_page_size = 1024 pages, we end up round up of left over 4 pages >>> to the min_page_size, so the total size would be 2048 pages. >>> >>>> i.e if someone does: >>>> >>>> alloc_blocks(mm, 0, end, 4096, 1<<16, &blocks, flags); >>> CASE 2: >>> I think this case should be detected (i.e) when min_page_size > size, >>> should we return -EINVAL? >>>> >>>> This will still trigger the BUG_ON() even if we move it out of the loop, >>>> AFAICT. >>>> >>> >>> Should we just allow the CASE 1 proceed for the allocation and return >>> -EINVAL for the CASE 2? >>> >>>>> + >>>>> do { >>>>> order = min(order, (unsigned int)fls(pages) - 1); >>>>> BUG_ON(order > mm->max_order); >>>>> - BUG_ON(order < min_order); >>>>> >>>>> do { >>>>> if (flags & DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION) >>>>> >>>>> base-commit: 8025c79350b90e5a8029234d433578f12abbae2b
On 10/03/22 8:59 pm, Matthew Auld wrote: > On 10/03/2022 14:47, Arunpravin wrote: >> >> >> On 08/03/22 10:31 pm, Matthew Auld wrote: >>> On 08/03/2022 13:59, Arunpravin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 07/03/22 10:11 pm, Matthew Auld wrote: >>>>> On 07/03/2022 14:37, Arunpravin wrote: >>>>>> place BUG_ON(order < min_order) outside do..while >>>>>> loop as it fails Unigine Heaven benchmark. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unigine Heaven has buffer allocation requests for >>>>>> example required pages are 161 and alignment request >>>>>> is 128. To allocate the remaining 33 pages, continues >>>>>> the iteration to find the order value which is 5 and >>>>>> when it compares with min_order = 7, enables the >>>>>> BUG_ON(). To avoid this problem, placed the BUG_ON >>>>>> check outside of do..while loop. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c | 3 ++- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >>>>>> index 72f52f293249..ed94c56b720f 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >>>>>> @@ -669,10 +669,11 @@ int drm_buddy_alloc_blocks(struct drm_buddy *mm, >>>>>> order = fls(pages) - 1; >>>>>> min_order = ilog2(min_page_size) - ilog2(mm->chunk_size); >>>>>> >>>>>> + BUG_ON(order < min_order); >>>>> >>>>> Isn't the issue that we are allowing a size that is not aligned to the >>>>> requested min_page_size? Should we not fix the caller(and throw a normal >>>>> error here), or perhaps add the round_up() here instead? >>>>> >>>> CASE 1: >>>> when size is not aligned to the requested min_page_size, for instance, >>>> required size = 161 pages, min_page_size = 128 pages, here we have 3 >>>> possible options, >>>> a. AFAIK,This kind of situation is common in any workload,the first >>>> allocation (i.e) 128 pages is aligned to min_page_size, Should we just >>>> allocate the left over 33 pages (2 pow 5, 2 pow 0) since the caller does >>>> know the left over pages are not in min_page_size alignment? >>> >>> So IIUC looking at amdgpu_gem_create_ioctl(), userspace can specify some >>> arbitrary physical alignment for an object? Is that not meant to apply >>> to every page/chunk? The above example would only have the correct >>> physical alignment guaranteed for the first chunk, or so, is this the >>> expected ABI behaviour? >>> >> I gone through the function amdgpu_gem_create_ioctl(), it reads the >> physical alignment in bytes from userspace, does i915 round up the size >> value to the alignment or does i915 fails the allocation request if size >> is not aligned with min_page_size? If not, I think running unigine >> heaven or similar benchmark triggers BUG_ON() on current version of drm >> buddy > > i915 will always round_up the obj->base.size as per the > default_page_size. But in our case the default_page_size is selected by > the kernel, which is always either PAGE_SIZE, or 64K on some platforms, > due to the HW having some minimum GPU page-size for mapping VRAM pages. > We don't currently have anything similar to > amdgpu_gem_create_in.alignment, where userspace can request some > arbitrary physical alignment. > >>> Also looking at this some more, the other related bug here is the >>> order-- == min_order check, since it now won't bail when order == 0, >>> leading to order = -1, if we are unlucky... >> will add a fix >>> >>> Originally, if asking for min_page_size > chunk_size, then the >>> allocation was meant to fail if it can't fill the resource request with >>> pages of at least that size(and also alignment). Or at least that was >>> the original meaning in i915 IIRC. >> we can follow the same here too, failing the allocation request if size >> is not aligned with min_page_size? > > Yeah, seems reasonable to me. I had internal discussion with Christian and he suggested to round_up the size to the alignment and trim the block to the required original size. I have sent the patch, please review. Thanks, Arun > >> >> I added a debug print for requested num_pages from userspace and its >> alignment request and executed unigine heaven, I see many such instances >> where min_page_size is not aligned to the size, how i915 handles such >> requests? >>> >>>> >>>> b. There are many such instances in unigine heaven workload (there would >>>> be many such workloads), throwing a normal error would lower the FPS? is >>>> it possible to fix at caller application? >>>> >>>> c. adding the round_up() is possible, but in every such instances we end >>>> up allocating extra unused memory. For example, if required pages = 1028 >>>> and min_page_size = 1024 pages, we end up round up of left over 4 pages >>>> to the min_page_size, so the total size would be 2048 pages. >>>> >>>>> i.e if someone does: >>>>> >>>>> alloc_blocks(mm, 0, end, 4096, 1<<16, &blocks, flags); >>>> CASE 2: >>>> I think this case should be detected (i.e) when min_page_size > size, >>>> should we return -EINVAL? >>>>> >>>>> This will still trigger the BUG_ON() even if we move it out of the loop, >>>>> AFAICT. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Should we just allow the CASE 1 proceed for the allocation and return >>>> -EINVAL for the CASE 2? >>>> >>>>>> + >>>>>> do { >>>>>> order = min(order, (unsigned int)fls(pages) - 1); >>>>>> BUG_ON(order > mm->max_order); >>>>>> - BUG_ON(order < min_order); >>>>>> >>>>>> do { >>>>>> if (flags & DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION) >>>>>> >>>>>> base-commit: 8025c79350b90e5a8029234d433578f12abbae2b
place BUG_ON(order < min_order) outside do..while loop as it fails Unigine Heaven benchmark. Unigine Heaven has buffer allocation requests for example required pages are 161 and alignment request is 128. To allocate the remaining 33 pages, continues the iteration to find the order value which is 5 and when it compares with min_order = 7, enables the BUG_ON(). To avoid this problem, placed the BUG_ON check outside of do..while loop. Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) base-commit: 8025c79350b90e5a8029234d433578f12abbae2b