Re: [PATCH 08/27] drm/i915/icl: Ringbuffer interrupt handling

Belgaumkar, Vinay
2018-02-02T00:36:29Z

On 2/1/2018 3:58 PM, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
>
>
> On 1/15/2018 2:38 AM, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> On 11/01/2018 19:17, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/01/18 02:12, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>> Quoting Paulo Zanoni (2018-01-09 23:23:17)
>>>>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since it is not possible to mask individual engine instances
>>>>> and they are all permanently unmasked we do not need to do
>>>>> anything for engine interrupt management.
>>>>
>>>> This scares me as we will more than double our interrupt generation
>>>> rate
>>>> as we have a breadcrumb interrupt after every request, just in case we
>>>> need to synchronize with the request. We've been relying on the ability
>>>> to mask those interrupts off, as historically we have been able to
>>>> saturate cpus with the amount of interrupts we could generate.
>>>> -Chris
>>>
>>> We do have masks per instance, but they're in gunit and not in the
>>> CS. they're defined in patch 4 of this series:
>>>
>>> +#define GEN11_RCS0_RSVD_INTR_MASK    _MMIO(0x190090)
>>> +#define GEN11_BCS_RSVD_INTR_MASK    _MMIO(0x1900a0)
>>> +#define GEN11_VCS0_VCS1_INTR_MASK    _MMIO(0x1900a8)
>>> +#define GEN11_VCS2_VCS3_INTR_MASK    _MMIO(0x1900ac)
>>> +#define GEN11_VECS0_VECS1_INTR_MASK    _MMIO(0x1900d0)
>>>
>>> Each instance gets half of a register for a 16 bits vector. I think
>>> there was some gotcha with the masks being in gunit but can't
>>> remember exactly what. Tvrtko, do you remember anything on this?
>>
>> I remember the message was to not use them since they were pencilled
>> in for removal from the HW. There was some issue with them in general
>> which made that decision attractive, coupled with the fact other OS
>> did not have a need for them.
>>
>> If that removal did not materialize we could perhaps revisit the
>> plans. It would require a locked RMW cycle as minimum since there are
>> two instances in each reg but that probably isn't such a big deal.
>>
>> So yeah, I think summary would be someone needs to pull on sleeves of
>> a HW designer, or someone close, to check what happened with the
>> removal plans, and what exactly was the problematic bit with frequent
>> (un)masking.
>
> I asked the hardware team about the removal, and that does not seem to
> be the case. I have added you to the email if you want more clarification.

Please disregard that comment, looks like there was already a separate
discussion on this.

Thanks,
Vinay.

>
> Thanks,
> Vinay.
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tvrtko
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx