Intel-GFX Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Harrison <john.c.harrison@intel.com>
To: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
	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, chris.p.wilson@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 2/5] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 09:18:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cae4f144-2e88-9c3c-985b-849e7f5ff123@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b95d8be7-c546-1b1c-3975-a4ef6257a28d@intel.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1829 bytes --]

On 10/6/2023 03:20, Nirmoy Das wrote:
>
> On 10/6/2023 12:11 PM, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Andi asked me to summarize what I think is unaddressed review 
>> feedback so far in order to consolidate and enable hopefully things 
>> to move forward. So I will try to re-iterate the comments and 
>> questions below.
>>
>> But also note that there is a bunch of new valid comments from John 
>> against v7 which I will not repeat.
>>
>> On 05/10/2023 20:35, Jonathan Cavitt wrote:
>>> ...
>>> +enum intel_guc_tlb_invalidation_type {
>>> +    INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_FULL = 0x0,
>>> +    INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_GUC = 0x3,
>>
>> New question - are these names coming from the GuC iface? I find it 
>> confusing that full does not include GuC but maybe it is just me. So 
>> maybe full should be called GT or something? Although then again it 
>> wouldn't be clear GT does not include the GuC.. bummer. GPU? Dunno. 
>> Minor confusion I guess so can keep as is.
>
> I agree this is bit confusing name. We are using 
> INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_GUC to invalidate ggtt, how about 
> INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_GGTT ?
>
The GuC interface spec says:

    GUC_TLB_INV_TYPE_TLB_INV_FULL_INTRA_VF = 0x00
    Full TLB invalidation within a VF. Invalidates VF’s TLBs only if
    that VF is active, will invalidate across all engines.

    GUC_TLB_INV_TYPE_TLB_INV_GUC = 0x03
    Guc TLB Invalidation.


So the 'GUC' type is not GGTT, it is the TLBs internal to GuC itself is 
how I would read the above. Whereas 'FULL' is everything that is per-VF, 
aka everything in the GT that is beyond the GuC level - i.e. the 
engines, EUs and everything from there on.

So I think the INVAL_GUC name is correct. But maybe INVAL_FULL should be 
called INVAL_VF? Or INVAL_ENGINES if you don't like using the VF term in 
a non-SRIOV capable driver?

John.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2656 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2023-10-06 16:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-10-05 19:35 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH dii-client v6 0/5] Subject: [PATCH dii-client v6 0/4] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-05 19:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/5] " Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-05 19:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 1/5] drm/i915: Add GuC TLB Invalidation device info flags Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-06  2:24   ` John Harrison
2023-10-06 10:22   ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-05 19:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 2/5] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-06  2:19   ` John Harrison
2023-10-06 11:57     ` Andi Shyti
2023-10-06 10:11   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-10-06 10:20     ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-06 16:18       ` John Harrison [this message]
2023-10-06 16:44         ` John Harrison
2023-10-06 13:04     ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-10-06 18:38       ` Cavitt, Jonathan
2023-10-05 19:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 3/5] drm/i915: No TLB invalidation on wedged or suspended GT Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-06 10:23   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-10-06 17:30     ` John Harrison
2023-10-05 19:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 4/5] drm/i915/gt: Increase sleep in gt_tlb selftest sanitycheck Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-06 17:57   ` John Harrison
2023-10-05 19:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 5/5] drm/i915: Enable GuC TLB invalidations for MTL Jonathan Cavitt
2023-10-06  1:20 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for Subject: [PATCH dii-client v6 0/4] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines (rev2) Patchwork
2023-10-06  1:20 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2023-10-06  1:39 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2023-10-06 10:15 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for Subject: [PATCH dii-client v6 0/4] drm/i915: Define and use GuC and CTB TLB invalidation routines (rev3) Patchwork
2023-10-06 10:15 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2023-10-06 10:26 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2023-10-06 22:08 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " 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=cae4f144-2e88-9c3c-985b-849e7f5ff123@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=tvrtko.ursulin@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