[Intel-gfx] [RFC 1/4] drm/i915: Implement a framework for batch buffer pools

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 06/20/2014 04:30 PM, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 06:25:56AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> On 06/19/2014 06:35 PM, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:48:29AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Brad,
>>>>
>>>> On 06/18/2014 05:36 PM, bradley.d.volkin at intel.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Brad Volkin <bradley.d.volkin at intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> This adds a small module for managing a pool of batch buffers.
>>>>> The only current use case is for the command parser, as described
>>>>> in the kerneldoc in the patch. The code is simple, but separating
>>>>> it out makes it easier to change the underlying algorithms and to
>>>>> extend to future use cases should they arise.
>>>>>
>>>>> The interface is simple: alloc to create an empty pool, free to
>>>>> clean it up; get to obtain a new buffer, put to return it to the
>>>>> pool. Note that all buffers must be returned to the pool before
>>>>> freeing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The pool has a maximum number of buffers allowed due to some tests
>>>>> (e.g. gem_exec_nop) creating a very large number of buffers (e.g.
>>>>> ___). Buffers are purgeable while in the pool, but not explicitly
>>>>> truncated in order to avoid overhead during execbuf.
>>>>>
>>>>> Locking is currently based on the caller holding the struct_mutex.
>>>>> We already do that in the places where we will use the batch pool
>>>>> for the command parser.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Brad Volkin <bradley.d.volkin at intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> r.e. pool capacity
>>>>> My original testing showed something like thousands of buffers in
>>>>> the pool after a gem_exec_nop run. But when I reran with the max
>>>>> check disabled just now to get an actual number for the commit
>>>>> message, the number was more like 130.  I developed and tested the
>>>>> changes incrementally, and suspect that the original run was before
>>>>> I implemented the actual copy operation. So I'm inclined to remove
>>>>> or at least increase the cap in the final version. Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Some random thoughts:
>>>>
>>>> Is it strictly necessary to cap the pool size? I ask because it seems to
>>>> be introducing a limit where so far there wasn't an explicit one.
>>>
>>> No, I only added it because there were a huge number of buffers in the
>>> pool at one point. But that seems to have been an artifact of my
>>> development process, so unless someone says they really want to keep
>>> the cap, I'm going to drop it in the next rev.
>>
>> Cap or no cap (I am for no cap), but the pool is still "grow only" at
>> the moment, no? So one allocation storm and objects on the pool inactive
>> list end up wasting memory forever.
>
> Oh, so what happens is that when you put() an object back in the pool, we
> set obj->madv = I915_MADV_DONTNEED, which should tell the shrinker that it
> can drop the backing storage for the object if we need space. When you get()
> an object, we set obj->madv = I915_MADV_WILLNEED and get new backing pages.
> So the number of objects grows (capped or not), but the memory used can be
> controlled.

Education time for me I see. :)

So the object is in pool->inactive_list _and_ in some other list so 
shrinker can find it?

Thanks,

Tvrtko