All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Harrison <john.c.harrison@intel.com>
To: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
	Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt@intel.com>,
	<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: janusz.krzysztofik@intel.com, andi.shyti@intel.com,
	matthew.d.roper@intel.com, chris.p.wilson@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 2/5] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 09:18:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cae4f144-2e88-9c3c-985b-849e7f5ff123@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b95d8be7-c546-1b1c-3975-a4ef6257a28d@intel.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1829 bytes --]

On 10/6/2023 03:20, Nirmoy Das wrote:
>
> On 10/6/2023 12:11 PM, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Andi asked me to summarize what I think is unaddressed review 
>> feedback so far in order to consolidate and enable hopefully things 
>> to move forward. So I will try to re-iterate the comments and 
>> questions below.
>>
>> But also note that there is a bunch of new valid comments from John 
>> against v7 which I will not repeat.
>>
>> On 05/10/2023 20:35, Jonathan Cavitt wrote:
>>> ...
>>> +enum intel_guc_tlb_invalidation_type {
>>> +    INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_FULL = 0x0,
>>> +    INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_GUC = 0x3,
>>
>> New question - are these names coming from the GuC iface? I find it 
>> confusing that full does not include GuC but maybe it is just me. So 
>> maybe full should be called GT or something? Although then again it 
>> wouldn't be clear GT does not include the GuC.. bummer. GPU? Dunno. 
>> Minor confusion I guess so can keep as is.
>
> I agree this is bit confusing name. We are using 
> INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_GUC to invalidate ggtt, how about 
> INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_GGTT ?
>
The GuC interface spec says:

    GUC_TLB_INV_TYPE_TLB_INV_FULL_INTRA_VF = 0x00
    Full TLB invalidation within a VF. Invalidates VF’s TLBs only if
    that VF is active, will invalidate across all engines.

    GUC_TLB_INV_TYPE_TLB_INV_GUC = 0x03
    Guc TLB Invalidation.


So the 'GUC' type is not GGTT, it is the TLBs internal to GuC itself is 
how I would read the above. Whereas 'FULL' is everything that is per-VF, 
aka everything in the GT that is beyond the GuC level - i.e. the 
engines, EUs and everything from there on.

So I think the INVAL_GUC name is correct. But maybe INVAL_FULL should be 
called INVAL_VF? Or INVAL_ENGINES if you don't like using the VF term in 
a non-SRIOV capable driver?

John.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2656 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2023-10-06 16:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-10-05 19:35 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH dii-client v6 0/5] Subject: [PATCH dii-client v6 0/4] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-05 19:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/5] " Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-05 19:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 1/5] drm/i915: Add GuC TLB Invalidation device info flags Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-06  2:24   ` John Harrison
2023-10-06 10:22   ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-05 19:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 2/5] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-06  2:19   ` John Harrison
2023-10-06 11:57     ` Andi Shyti
2023-10-06 10:11   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-10-06 10:20     ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-06 16:18       ` John Harrison [this message]
2023-10-06 16:44         ` John Harrison
2023-10-06 13:04     ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-10-06 18:38       ` Cavitt, Jonathan
2023-10-05 19:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 3/5] drm/i915: No TLB invalidation on wedged or suspended GT Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-06 10:23   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-10-06 17:30     ` John Harrison
2023-10-05 19:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 4/5] drm/i915/gt: Increase sleep in gt_tlb selftest sanitycheck Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-06 17:57   ` John Harrison
2023-10-05 19:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 5/5] drm/i915: Enable GuC TLB invalidations for MTL Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-06  1:20 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for Subject: [PATCH dii-client v6 0/4] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines (rev2) Patchwork
2023-10-06  1:20 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2023-10-06  1:39 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2023-10-06 10:15 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for Subject: [PATCH dii-client v6 0/4] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines (rev3) Patchwork
2023-10-06 10:15 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2023-10-06 10:26 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2023-10-06 22:08 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=cae4f144-2e88-9c3c-985b-849e7f5ff123@intel.com \
    --to=john.c.harrison@intel.com \
    --cc=andi.shyti@intel.com \
    --cc=chris.p.wilson@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=janusz.krzysztofik@intel.com \
    --cc=jonathan.cavitt@intel.com \
    --cc=matthew.d.roper@intel.com \
    --cc=nirmoy.das@intel.com \
    --cc=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.