public inbox for intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: akash.goel@intel.com
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] drm/i915 : Avoid superfluous invalidation of CPU cache lines
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:34:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151201123441.GU4437@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1448867465-5520-1-git-send-email-akash.goel@intel.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:41:05PM +0530, akash.goel@intel.com wrote:
> From: Akash Goel <akash.goel@intel.com>
> 
> When the object is moved out of CPU read domain, the cachelines
> are not invalidated immediately. The invalidation is deferred till
> next time the object is brought back into CPU read domain.
> But the invalidation is done unconditionally, i.e. even for the case
> where the cachelines were flushed previously, when the object moved out
> of CPU write domain. This is avoidable and would lead to some optimization.
> Though this is not a hypothetical case, but is unlikely to occur often.
> The aim is to detect changes to the backing storage whilst the
> data is potentially in the CPU cache, and only clflush in those case.
> 
> v2: Made the comment more verbose (Ville/Chris)
>     Added doc for 'cache_clean' field (Daniel)
> 
> v3: Updated the comment to assuage an apprehension regarding the
>     speculative-prefetching behavior of HW (Ville/Chris)
> 
> Testcase: igt/gem_concurrent_blit
> Testcase: igt/benchmarks/gem_set_domain
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Akash Goel <akash.goel@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h |  9 +++++++++
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index 11ae5a5..f97795e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -2100,6 +2100,15 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_object {
>  	unsigned int cache_level:3;
>  	unsigned int cache_dirty:1;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Tracks if the CPU cache has been completely clflushed.
> +	 * !cache_clean does not imply cache_dirty (there is some data in the
> +	 * CPU cachelines, but has not been dirtied), but cache_clean
> +	 * does imply !cache_dirty (no data in cachelines, so not dirty also).
> +	 * Actually cache_dirty tracks whether we have been omitting clflushes.
> +	 */
> +	unsigned int cache_clean:1;

Maybe it should be cache_flushed or something? clean really makes me
think !dirty.

> +
>  	unsigned int frontbuffer_bits:INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS;
>  
>  	unsigned int pin_display;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 33adc8f..7376be8 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -3552,6 +3552,7 @@ i915_gem_clflush_object(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
>  	trace_i915_gem_object_clflush(obj);
>  	drm_clflush_sg(obj->pages);
>  	obj->cache_dirty = false;
> +	obj->cache_clean = true;
>  
>  	return true;
>  }
> @@ -3982,7 +3983,21 @@ i915_gem_object_set_to_cpu_domain(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, bool write)
>  
>  	/* Flush the CPU cache if it's still invalid. */
>  	if ((obj->base.read_domains & I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU) == 0) {
> -		i915_gem_clflush_object(obj, false);
> +		/* If an object is moved out of the CPU domain following a
> +		 * CPU write and before a GPU or GTT write, we will clflush
> +		 * it out of the CPU cache, and mark the cache as clean.
> +		 * After clflushing we know that this object cannot be in the
> +		 * CPU cache, nor can it be speculatively loaded into the CPU
> +		 * cache as our objects are page-aligned (& speculation cannot
> +		 * cross page boundaries). Whilst this flag is set, we know
> +		 * that any future access to the object's pages will miss the
> +		 * stale cache and have to be serviced from main memory, i.e.
> +		 * we do not need another clflush to invalidate the CPU cache
> +		 * in preparing to read from the object.
> +		 */
> +		if (!obj->cache_clean)
> +			i915_gem_clflush_object(obj, false);
> +		obj->cache_clean = false;

Having the comment here talk about moving stuff out of the cpu domain
made me think there's a bug here (false vs. true). But actually this
code moves it into the cpu domain so it's actually fine, I wonder if
there's a better place for the comment (eg. where we do set
cache_clean=true)?

>  
>  		obj->base.read_domains |= I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU;
>  	}
> -- 
> 1.9.2

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2015-12-01 12:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-24 10:05 [PATCH] drm/i915 : Avoid superfluous invalidation of CPU cache lines akash.goel
2015-11-24 10:04 ` Ville Syrjälä
2015-11-24 18:14   ` Daniel Vetter
2015-11-24 22:39     ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-25  5:29       ` [PATCH v2] " akash.goel
2015-11-25  9:21       ` [PATCH] " Daniel Vetter
2015-11-25  9:27         ` Goel, Akash
2015-11-25 10:00           ` Daniel Vetter
2015-11-30  6:24             ` Goel, Akash
2015-11-30  8:15               ` Daniel Vetter
2015-12-01 12:07                 ` Goel, Akash
2015-11-25 11:02       ` Ville Syrjälä
2015-11-25 17:28         ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-26  3:39           ` Goel, Akash
2015-11-26 10:57             ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-30  7:11               ` [PATCH v3] " akash.goel
2015-12-01 12:34                 ` Ville Syrjälä [this message]
2015-12-01 13:09                   ` Chris Wilson
2015-12-01 13:28                     ` Ville Syrjälä
2015-12-01 13:49                       ` Chris Wilson
2015-12-01 14:00                         ` Ville Syrjälä
2015-12-01 15:00                           ` Goel, Akash
2015-12-02  8:07                             ` [PATCH v4] " akash.goel
2015-12-06 17:03                               ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-24 10:10 ` [PATCH] " Chris Wilson

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=20151201123441.GU4437@intel.com \
    --to=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=akash.goel@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox