From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE02C07E9A for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C4EE613B6 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:08:59 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1C4EE613B6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B806E233; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:08:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF7686E233; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:08:56 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10044"; a="210311656" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,239,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="210311656" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Jul 2021 05:08:47 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,239,1620716400"; d="scan'208";a="459965915" Received: from stinkbox.fi.intel.com (HELO stinkbox) ([10.237.72.171]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 14 Jul 2021 05:08:44 -0700 Received: by stinkbox (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:08:43 +0300 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:08:43 +0300 From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= To: Daniel Vetter Message-ID: References: <20210713104554.2381406-1-matthew.auld@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Patchwork-Hint: comment Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: document caching related bits X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Daniel Vetter , Intel Graphics Development , Matthew Auld , ML dri-devel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 02:42:53PM +0300, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 01:16:57PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 09:46:30PM +0300, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 07:24:23PM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote: > > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 18:47, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 05:13:37PM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 16:55, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:45:50AM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote: > > > > > > > > + /** > > > > > > > > + * @cache_coherent: > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * Track whether the pages are coherent with the GPU = if reading or > > > > > > > > + * writing through the CPU cache. > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * This largely depends on the @cache_level, for exam= ple if the object > > > > > > > > + * is marked as I915_CACHE_LLC, then GPU access is co= herent for both > > > > > > > > + * reads and writes through the CPU cache. > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * Note that on platforms with shared-LLC support(HAS= _LLC) reads through > > > > > > > > + * the CPU cache are always coherent, regardless of t= he @cache_level. On > > > > > > > > + * snooping based platforms this is not the case, unl= ess the full > > > > > > > > + * I915_CACHE_LLC or similar setting is used. > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * As a result of this we need to track coherency sep= arately for reads > > > > > > > > + * and writes, in order to avoid superfluous flushing= on shared-LLC > > > > > > > > + * platforms, for reads. > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * I915_BO_CACHE_COHERENT_FOR_READ: > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * When reading through the CPU cache, the GPU is sti= ll coherent. Note > > > > > > > > + * that no data has actually been modified here, so i= t might seem > > > > > > > > + * strange that we care about this. > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * As an example, if some object is mapped on the CPU= with write-back > > > > > > > > + * caching, and we read some page, then the cache lik= ely now contains > > > > > > > > + * the data from that read. At this point the cache a= nd main memory > > > > > > > > + * match up, so all good. But next the GPU needs to w= rite some data to > > > > > > > > + * that same page. Now if the @cache_level is I915_CA= CHE_NONE and the > > > > > > > > + * the platform doesn't have the shared-LLC, then the= GPU will > > > > > > > > + * effectively skip invalidating the cache(or however= that works > > > > > > > > + * internally) when writing the new value. This is r= eally bad since the > > > > > > > > + * GPU has just written some new data to main memory,= but the CPU cache > > > > > > > > + * is still valid and now contains stale data. As a r= esult the next time > > > > > > > > + * we do a cached read with the CPU, we are rewarded = with stale data. > > > > > > > > + * Likewise if the cache is later flushed, we might b= e rewarded with > > > > > > > > + * overwriting main memory with stale data. > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * I915_BO_CACHE_COHERENT_FOR_WRITE: > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * When writing through the CPU cache, the GPU is sti= ll coherent. Note > > > > > > > > + * that this also implies I915_BO_CACHE_COHERENT_FOR_= READ. > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > > + * This is never set when I915_CACHE_NONE is used for= @cache_level, > > > > > > > > + * where instead we have to manually flush the caches= after writing > > > > > > > > + * through the CPU cache. For other cache levels this= should be set and > > > > > > > > + * the object is therefore considered coherent for bo= th reads and writes > > > > > > > > + * through the CPU cache. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't remember why we have this read vs. write split and th= is new > > > > > > > documentation doesn't seem to really explain it either. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, I attempted to explain that earlier: > > > > > > > > > > > > * Note that on platforms with shared-LLC support(HAS_LLC) reads= through > > > > > > * the CPU cache are always coherent, regardless of the @cache_l= evel. On > > > > > > * snooping based platforms this is not the case, unless the full > > > > > > * I915_CACHE_LLC or similar setting is used. > > > > > > * > > > > > > * As a result of this we need to track coherency separately for= reads > > > > > > * and writes, in order to avoid superfluous flushing on shared-= LLC > > > > > > * platforms, for reads. > > > > > > > > > > > > So AFAIK it's just because shared-LLC can be coherent for reads= , while > > > > > > also not being coherent for writes(CACHE_NONE), > > > > > > > > > > CPU vs. GPU is fully coherent when it comes to LLC. Or at least I= 've > > > > > never heard of any mechanism that would make it only partially co= herent. > > > > = > > > > What do you mean by "comes to LLC", are you talking about HAS_LLC()= or > > > > I915_CACHE_LLC? > > > = > > > I'm talking about the actual cache. > > > = > > > > = > > > > If you set I915_CACHE_LLC, then yes it is fully coherent for both > > > > HAS_LLC() and HAS_SNOOP(). > > > > = > > > > If you set I915_CACHE_NONE, then reads are still coherent on > > > > HAS_LLC(), > > > = > > > Reads and writes both. The only thing that's not coherent is the > > > display engine. > > = > > There's a lot of code which seems to disagree, > = > Can't even imagine why anyone would make a cache coherency protocol > that only handles reads but not writes... > = > > plus there's now this new > > MOCS thing. > = > That's just a full LLC bypass AFAICS. Can't omit invalidates if > you use that one or you'll just get stale data from the cache > on reads as well. And just to reiterate that the current "reads are coherent" thing works is because the only non-coherent agent (display engine) never writes anything. If/when we implement writeback support we can no longer skip the invalidate even on LLC machines when reading from a writeback buffer. -- = Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx