Re: [PATCH RFC 10/18] drm/scheduler: Add can_run_job callback

[Karol Herbst]

On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 4:09 PM Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Am 08.03.23 um 15:43 schrieb Karol Herbst:
> > [SNIP]
> > "further"? There was no discussion at all,
>
> Yeah, well that is exactly what I wanted to archive.
>
> >   you just started off like
> > that. If you think somebody misses that connection, you can point out
> > to documentation/videos whatever so the contributor can understand
> > what's wrong with an approach. You did that, so that's fine. It's just
> > starting off _any_ discussion with a "Well complete NAK" is terrible
> > style. I'd feel uncomfortable if that happened to me and I'm sure
> > there are enough people like that that we should be more reasonable
> > with our replies. Just.. don't.
> >
> > We are all humans here and people react negatively to such things. And
> > if people do it on purpose it just makes it worse.
>
> I completely see your point, I just don't know how to improve it.
>
> I don't stop people like this because I want to make them uncomfortable
> but because I want to prevent further discussions on that topic.
>
> In other words how can I make people notice that this is something
> fundamental while still being polite?
>

I think a little improvement over this would be to at least wait a few
replies before resorting to those strong statements. Just before it
becomes a risk in just wasting time.

> >>>> This is clearly going against the idea of having jobs only depend on
> >>>> fences and nothing else which is mandatory for correct memory management.
> >>>>
> >>> I'm sure it's all documented and there is a design document on how
> >>> things have to look like you can point out? Might help to get a better
> >>> understanding on how things should be.
> >> Yeah, that's the problematic part. We have documented this very
> >> extensively:
> >> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/driver-api/dma-buf.html#indefinite-dma-fences
> >>
> >> And both Jason and Daniel gave talks about the underlying problem and
> > fyi:
> > s/Jason/Faith/g
>
> +1. I wasn't aware of that.
>
> >> try to come up with patches to raise warnings when that happens, but
> >> people still keep coming up with the same idea over and over again.
> >>
> > Yes, and we'll have to tell them over and over again. Nothing wrong
> > with that. That's just part of maintaining such a big subsystem. And
> > that's definitely not a valid reason to phrase things like above.
> >
> >> It's just that the technical relationship between preventing jobs from
> >> running and with that preventing dma_fences from signaling and the core
> >> memory management with page faults and shrinkers waiting for those
> >> fences is absolutely not obvious.
> >>
> >> We had at least 10 different teams from different companies falling into
> >> the same trap already and either the patches were rejected of hand or
> >> had to painfully reverted or mitigated later on.
> >>
> > Sure, but that's just part of the job. And pointing out fundamental
> > mistakes early on is important, but the situation won't get any better
> > by being like that. Yes, we'll have to repeat the same words over and
> > over again, and yes that might be annoying, but that's just how it is.
>
> Well I have no problem explaining people why a solution doesn't work.
>
> But what usually happens is that people don't realize that they need to
> back of from a design and completely start over.
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Christian.
> >>
> >>>> If the hw is busy with something you need to return the fence for this
> >>>> from the prepare_job callback so that the scheduler can be notified when
> >>>> the hw is available again.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Christian.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <lina@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >>>>>     include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h            |  8 ++++++++
> >>>>>     2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> >>>>> index 4e6ad6e122bc..5c0add2c7546 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> >>>>> @@ -1001,6 +1001,16 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param)
> >>>>>                 if (!entity)
> >>>>>                         continue;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +             if (sched->ops->can_run_job) {
> >>>>> +                     sched_job = to_drm_sched_job(spsc_queue_peek(&entity->job_queue));
> >>>>> +                     if (!sched_job) {
> >>>>> +                             complete_all(&entity->entity_idle);
> >>>>> +                             continue;
> >>>>> +                     }
> >>>>> +                     if (!sched->ops->can_run_job(sched_job))
> >>>>> +                             continue;
> >>>>> +             }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>>                 sched_job = drm_sched_entity_pop_job(entity);
> >>>>>
> >>>>>                 if (!sched_job) {
> >>>>> diff --git a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> >>>>> index 9db9e5e504ee..bd89ea9507b9 100644
> >>>>> --- a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> >>>>> +++ b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> >>>>> @@ -396,6 +396,14 @@ struct drm_sched_backend_ops {
> >>>>>         struct dma_fence *(*prepare_job)(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job,
> >>>>>                                          struct drm_sched_entity *s_entity);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +     /**
> >>>>> +      * @can_run_job: Called before job execution to check whether the
> >>>>> +      * hardware is free enough to run the job.  This can be used to
> >>>>> +      * implement more complex hardware resource policies than the
> >>>>> +      * hw_submission limit.
> >>>>> +      */
> >>>>> +     bool (*can_run_job)(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>>         /**
> >>>>>              * @run_job: Called to execute the job once all of the dependencies
> >>>>>              * have been resolved.  This may be called multiple times, if
> >>>>>
>