From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 61/66] drm/i915: Use multiple VMs
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:34:59 +0300
Message-ID: <20130702113459.GN5004@intel.com>
References: <1372375867-1003-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1372375867-1003-62-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<20130627234340.GA32371@bwidawsk.net>
	<20130702105812.GL5004@intel.com>
	<20130702110710.GC27496@cantiga.alporthouse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B2EE5C0A
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Tue,  2 Jul 2013 04:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130702110710.GC27496@cantiga.alporthouse.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>, Intel GFX <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:07:10PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 01:58:13PM +0300, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 wrote:
> > Also IIRC someone told me that w/ uncached mappings the caches aren't
> > snooped even on LLC platforms. If that's true, MOCS seems even more
> > dangerous since the client could easily mix cached and uncached
> > accesses. I don't really understand why uncached mappings wouldn't
> > snoop on LLC platforms since the snooping should be more or less free.
> =

> Who said that? Doesn't appear to be the case on SNB/IVB/HSW as far as I
> can tell.

Can't remember now who said it, or could be I just misunderstood. But if
it's not true, then MOCS seems actually useful. Otherwise it's going to
be a clflush fest when you want to change from cached to uncached.

-- =

Ville Syrj=E4l=E4
Intel OTC