From: John Harrison <john.c.harrison@intel.com>
To: 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, saurabhg.gupta@intel.com,
chris.p.wilson@linux.intel.com, nirmoy.das@intel.com
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v11 3/7] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:52:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <71e34d55-4639-49f1-b358-a32aa0aceedf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231011000248.2181018-4-jonathan.cavitt@intel.com>
On 10/10/2023 17:02, Jonathan Cavitt wrote:
> From: Prathap Kumar Valsan <prathap.kumar.valsan@intel.com>
>
> The GuC firmware had defined the interface for Translation Look-Aside
> Buffer (TLB) invalidation. We should use this interface when
> invalidating the engine and GuC TLBs.
> Add additional functionality to intel_gt_invalidate_tlb, invalidating
> the GuC TLBs and falling back to GT invalidation when the GuC is
> disabled.
> The invalidation is done by sending a request directly to the GuC
> tlb_lookup that invalidates the table. The invalidation is submitted as
> a wait request and is performed in the CT event handler. This means we
> cannot perform this TLB invalidation path if the CT is not enabled.
> If the request isn't fulfilled in two seconds, this would constitute
> an error in the invalidation as that would constitute either a lost
> request or a severe GuC overload.
>
> With this new invalidation routine, we can perform GuC-based GGTT
> invalidations. GuC-based GGTT invalidation is incompatible with
> MMIO invalidation so we should not perform MMIO invalidation when
> GuC-based GGTT invalidation is expected.
>
> The additional complexity incurred in this patch will be necessary for
> range-based tlb invalidations, which will be platformed in the future.
>
> Signed-off-by: Prathap Kumar Valsan <prathap.kumar.valsan@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bruce Chang <yu.bruce.chang@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aravind Iddamsetty <aravind.iddamsetty@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Fei Yang <fei.yang@intel.com>
> CC: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-11 17:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-11 0:02 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v11 0/7] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-11 0:02 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v11 1/7] drm/i915: Add GuC TLB Invalidation device info flags Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-11 9:00 ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-11 0:02 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v11 2/7] drm/i915/guc: Add CT size delay helper Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-11 9:00 ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-11 17:44 ` John Harrison
2023-10-11 0:02 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v11 3/7] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-11 9:01 ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-11 17:52 ` John Harrison [this message]
2023-10-11 0:02 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v11 4/7] drm/i915: No TLB invalidation on suspended GT Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-11 11:09 ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-11 0:02 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v11 5/7] drm/i915: No TLB invalidation on wedged GT Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-11 9:03 ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-11 0:02 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v11 6/7] drm/i915/gt: Increase sleep in gt_tlb selftest sanitycheck Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-11 9:04 ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-11 0:02 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v11 7/7] drm/i915: Enable GuC TLB invalidations for MTL Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-11 9:05 ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-11 4:17 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines Patchwork
2023-10-11 4:17 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2023-10-11 4:30 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2023-10-11 8:24 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v11 0/7] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-10-11 18:55 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for " 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=71e34d55-4639-49f1-b358-a32aa0aceedf@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=saurabhg.gupta@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox