From: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
To: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915: Do only one posting read on forcewake put sequence
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:54:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h9va99zt.fsf@gaia.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150128134849.GQ19354@intel.com>
Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 03:28:56PM +0200, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
>> Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 02:43:25PM +0200, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
>> >> commit 05a2fb157e44a53c79133805d30eaada43911941
>> >> Author: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
>> >> Date: Mon Jan 19 16:20:43 2015 +0200
>> >>
>> >> drm/i915: Consolidate forcewake code
>> >>
>> >> introduced domain handling where each domain has it's own posting
>> >> read registers. This changed the forcewake sequence on 'put' side when
>> >> there is multiple domains as there would be extra read between the domain
>> >> puts. Any posting read should be enough to flush all the changes.
>> >>
>> >> Do a posting read only once, at the end of the sequence and for
>> >> the first domain. Like it was before.
>> >>
>> >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@intel.com>
>> >
>> > fwiw, I would argue that the posting read in _get() is superfluous as we
>> > will serialise the fw with not only the ack, but any subsequent mmio.
>> >
>> > On the _put() side we do want to flush the write so that the hw can
>> > power down as early as possible. So just kill the posting read from _get
>> > and otherwise drop the patch. :)
>>
>> Yes, both put/get patches should be dropped. I posted a patch removing
>> the posting read on get side and with your explanations in commit message.
>>
>> This all starts to make so much sense that some gen is bound to break ;)
>
> IIRC the posting read from same cache line actually fixed real bugs. So
> I'm a bit worried about dropping them. But I suppose it's possible only
> the _put side was important for those bugs.
I found these:
commit 6af2d180f82151cf3d58952e35a4f96e45bc453a
Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Date: Thu Jul 26 16:24:50 2012 +0200
drm/i915: fix forcewake related hangs on snb
commit 8dee3eea3ccd3b6c00a8d3a08dd715d6adf737dd
Author: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Date: Sat Sep 1 22:59:50 2012 -0700
drm/i915: Never read FORCEWAKE
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51738
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52424
The snb here seems to survive gem_dummy_reloc_loop and
gem_ring_sync_loop in here with the get side posting removed.
-Mika
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-28 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-28 12:43 [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Do uncore early sanitize after domain init Mika Kuoppala
2015-01-28 12:43 ` [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915: Do only one posting read on forcewake put sequence Mika Kuoppala
2015-01-28 12:58 ` Chris Wilson
2015-01-28 13:25 ` [PATCH] drm/i915: Don't do posting reads on getting forcewake Mika Kuoppala
2015-01-28 14:04 ` Chris Wilson
2015-01-30 16:16 ` Daniel Vetter
2015-01-31 9:13 ` shuang.he
2015-01-28 13:28 ` [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915: Do only one posting read on forcewake put sequence Mika Kuoppala
2015-01-28 13:48 ` Ville Syrjälä
2015-01-28 15:54 ` Mika Kuoppala [this message]
2015-01-28 16:43 ` Chris Wilson
2015-01-28 12:43 ` [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Do only one posting read on forcewake get sequence Mika Kuoppala
2015-01-28 12:59 ` Chris Wilson
2015-01-31 7:52 ` shuang.he
2015-01-28 13:01 ` [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Do uncore early sanitize after domain init 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=87h9va99zt.fsf@gaia.fi.intel.com \
--to=mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=ville.syrjala@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox