Re: [PATCH 00/83] AMD HSA kernel driver

[Jerome Glisse]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:53:32PM +0000, Bridgman, John wrote:
> >From: Jerome Glisse [mailto:j.glisse@xxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 1:37 PM
> >To: Bridgman, John
> >Cc: Dave Airlie; Christian König; Lewycky, Andrew; linux-
> >kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Deucher,
> >Alexander; akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/83] AMD HSA kernel driver
> >
> >On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:06:56PM +0000, Bridgman, John wrote:
> >> >From: Dave Airlie [mailto:airlied@xxxxxxxxx]
> >> >Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:35 AM
> >> >To: Christian König
> >> >Cc: Jerome Glisse; Bridgman, John; Lewycky, Andrew; linux-
> >> >kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Deucher,
> >> >Alexander; akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/83] AMD HSA kernel driver
> >> >
> >> >On 14 July 2014 18:37, Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>> I vote for HSA module that expose ioctl and is an intermediary
> >> >>> with the kernel driver that handle the hardware. This gives a
> >> >>> single point for HSA hardware and yes this enforce things for any
> >> >>> hardware
> >> >manufacturer.
> >> >>> I am more than happy to tell them that this is it and nothing else
> >> >>> if they want to get upstream.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think we should still discuss this single point of entry a bit more.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just to make it clear the plan is to expose all physical HSA
> >> >> capable devices through a single /dev/hsa device node to userspace.
> >> >
> >> >This is why we don't design kernel interfaces in secret foundations,
> >> >and expect anyone to like them.
> >>
> >> Understood and agree. In this case though this isn't a cross-vendor
> >> interface designed by a secret committee, it's supposed to be more of
> >> an inoffensive little single-vendor interface designed *for* a secret
> >> committee. I'm hoping that's better ;)
> >>
> >> >
> >> >So before we go any further, how is this stuff planned to work for
> >> >multiple GPUs/accelerators?
> >>
> >> Three classes of "multiple" :
> >>
> >> 1. Single CPU with IOMMUv2 and multiple GPUs:
> >>
> >> - all devices accessible via /dev/kfd
> >> - topology information identifies CPU + GPUs, each has "node ID" at
> >> top of userspace API, "global ID" at user/kernel interface  (don't
> >> think we've implemented CPU part yet though)
> >> - userspace builds snapshot from sysfs info & exposes to HSAIL
> >> runtime, which in turn exposes the "standard" API
> >
> >This is why i do not like the sysfs approach, it would be lot nicer to have
> >device file per provider and thus hsail can listen on device file event and
> >discover if hardware is vanishing or appearing. Periodicaly going over sysfs
> >files is not the right way to do that.
> 
> Agree that wouldn't be good. There's an event mechanism still to come - mostly
> for communicating fences and shader interrupts back to userspace, but also used
> for "device change" notifications, so no polling of sysfs.
> 

My point being, do not use sysfs, use /dev/hsa/device* and have hsail listen on
file event on /dev/hsa/ directory. The hsail would be inform of new device and
of device that are unloaded. It would do a first pass to open each device file
and get there capabilities through standardize ioctl.

Thought maybe sysfs is ok given than cpu numa is expose through sysfs

> >
> >> - kfd sets up ATC aperture so GPUs can access system RAM via IOMMUv2
> >> (fast for APU, relatively less so for dGPU over PCIE)
> >> - to-be-added memory operations allow allocation & residency control
> >> (within existing gfx driver limits) of buffers in VRAM & carved-out
> >> system RAM
> >> - queue operations specify a node ID to userspace library, which
> >> translates to "global ID" before calling kfd
> >>
> >> 2. Multiple CPUs connected via fabric (eg HyperTransport) each with 0 or
> >more GPUs:
> >>
> >> - topology information exposes CPUs & GPUs, along with affinity info
> >> showing what is connected to what
> >> - everything else works as in (1) above
> >>
> >
> >This is suppose to be part of HSA ? This is lot broader than i thought.
> 
> Yes although it can be skipped on most systems. We figured that topology
> needed to cover everything that would be handled by a single OS image, so
> in a NUMA system it would need to cover all the CPUs. I think that is still
> the right scope, do you agree ?

I think it is a idea to duplicate cpu. I would rather have each device
give its afinity against each cpu and for cpu just keep the existing
kernel api that expose this through sysfs iirc.

> 
> >
> >> 3. Multiple CPUs not connected via fabric (eg a blade server) each
> >> with 0 or more GPUs
> >>
> >> - no attempt to cover this with HSA topology, each CPU and associated
> >> GPUs is accessed independently via separate /dev/kfd instances
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Do we have a userspace to exercise this interface so we can see how
> >> >such a thing would look?
> >>
> >> Yes -- initial IP review done, legal stuff done, sanitizing WIP,
> >> hoping for final approval this week
> >>
> >> There's a separate test harness to exercise the userspace lib calls,
> >> haven't started IP review or sanitizing for that but legal stuff is
> >> done
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Dave.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/