Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] drm: Add fdinfo memory stats

[Rob Clark]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 4:59 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
<tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 21/04/2023 12:45, Emil Velikov wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 12:23, Tvrtko Ursulin
> > <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/04/2023 11:26, Emil Velikov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 23:43, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +/**
> >>>> + * enum drm_gem_object_status - bitmask of object state for fdinfo reporting
> >>>> + * @DRM_GEM_OBJECT_RESIDENT: object is resident in memory (ie. not unpinned)
> >>>> + * @DRM_GEM_OBJECT_PURGEABLE: object marked as purgeable by userspace
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * Bitmask of status used for fdinfo memory stats, see &drm_gem_object_funcs.status
> >>>> + * and drm_show_fdinfo().  Note that an object can DRM_GEM_OBJECT_PURGEABLE if
> >>>> + * it still active or not resident, in which case drm_show_fdinfo() will not
> >>>
> >>> nit: s/can/can be/;s/if it still/if it is still/
> >>>
> >>>> + * account for it as purgeable.  So drivers do not need to check if the buffer
> >>>> + * is idle and resident to return this bit.  (Ie. userspace can mark a buffer
> >>>> + * as purgeable even while it is still busy on the GPU.. it does not _actually_
> >>>> + * become puregeable until it becomes idle.  The status gem object func does
> >>>
> >>> nit: s/puregeable/purgeable/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think we want a similar note in the drm-usage-stats.rst file.
> >>>
> >>> With the above the whole series is:
> >>> Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Have you maybe noticed my slightly alternative proposal? (*) I am not a
> >> fan of putting this flavour of accounting into the core with no way to
> >> opt out. I think it leaves no option but to add more keys in the future
> >> for any driver which will not be happy with the core accounting.
> >>
> >> *) https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/116581/
> >>
> >
> > Indeed I saw it. Not a fan of it, I'm afraid.
>
> Hard to guess the reasons. :)
>
> Anyway, at a minimum I suggest that if the no opt out version has to go
> in, it is clearly documented drm-*-memory-* is *not* about the full
> memory use of the client, but about memory belonging to user visible
> buffer objects *only*. Possibly going as far as naming the keys as
> drm-user-bo-memory-... That way there is a way to implement proper
> drm-*-memory- in the future.

I'll go back to the helper approach, just been distracted by a few
other balls in the air.. should hopefully get to it in the next couple
days

BR,
-R

> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
>
> >>> Fwiw: Keeping the i915 patch as part of this series would be great.
> >>> Sure i915_drm_client->id becomes dead code, but it's a piece one can
> >>> live with for a release or two. Then again it's not my call to make.
> >>
> >> Rob can take the i915 patch from my RFC too.
> >>
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > -Emil