Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/scheduler: Don't call wait_event_killable for signaled process.

[Andrey Grodzovsky]

On 04/30/2018 08:08 AM, Christian KÃnig wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> sorry for the late response, was on vacation last week.
>
> Am 26.04.2018 um 02:01 schrieb Eric W. Biederman:
> > Andrey Grodzovsky <Andrey.Grodzovsky@xxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > On 04/25/2018 01:17 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > On 04/25, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
> > > > > here (drm_sched_entity_fini) is also a bad idea, but we still want 
> > > > > to be
> > > > > able to exit immediately
> > > > > and not wait for GPU jobs completion when the reason for reaching 
> > > > > this code
> > > > > is because of KILL
> > > > > signal to the user process who opened the device file.
> > > > Can you hook f_op->flush method?
>
> THANKS! That sounds like a really good idea to me and we haven't 
> investigated into that direction yet.
>
> > > But this one is called for each task releasing a reference to the 
> > > the file, so
> > > not sure I see how this solves the problem.
> > The big question is why do you need to wait during the final closing a
> > file?
>
> As always it's because of historical reasons. Initially user space 
> pushed commands directly to a hardware queue and when a processes 
> finished we didn't need to wait for anything.
>
> Then the GPU scheduler was introduced which delayed pushing the jobs 
> to the hardware queue to a later point in time.
>
> This wait was then added to maintain backward compability and not 
> break userspace (but see below).
>
> > The wait can be terminated so the wait does not appear to be simply a
> > matter of correctness.
>
> Well when the process is killed we don't care about correctness any 
> more, we just want to get rid of it as quickly as possible (OOM 
> situation etc...).
>
> But it is perfectly possible that a process submits some render 
> commands and then calls exit() or terminates because of a SIGTERM, 
> SIGINT etc.. In this case we need to wait here to make sure that all 
> rendering is pushed to the hardware because the scheduler might need 
> resources/settings from the file descriptor.
>
> For example if you just remove that wait you could close firefox and 
> get garbage on the screen for a millisecond because the remaining 
> rendering commands where not executed.
>
> So what we essentially need is to distinct between a SIGKILL (which 
> means stop processing as soon as possible) and any other reason 
> because then we don't want to annoy the user with garbage on the 
> screen (even if it's just for a few milliseconds).
>
> Constructive ideas how to handle this would be very welcome, cause I 
> completely agree that what we have at the moment by checking PF_SIGNAL 
> is just a very very hacky workaround.

What about changing PF_SIGNALED to PF_EXITING in 
drm_sched_entity_do_release

-ÂÂÂÂÂÂ if ((current->flags & PF_SIGNALED) && current->exit_code == SIGKILL)
+ÂÂÂÂÂ if ((current->flags & PF_EXITING) && current->exit_code == SIGKILL)

From looking into do_exit and it's callers , current->exit_code will 
get assign the signal which was delivered to the task. If SIGINT was 
sent then it's SIGINT, if SIGKILL then SIGKILL.

Andrey


> Thanks,
> Christian.


> > Eric
> > _______________________________________________
> > amd-gfx mailing list
> > amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx