From: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 08/11] drm/xe/tlb: also update seqno_recv during reset
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 10:40:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230710094037.28179-21-matthew.auld@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230710094037.28179-13-matthew.auld@intel.com>
We might have various kworkers waiting for TLB flushes to complete which
are not tracked with an explicit TLB fence, however at this stage that
will never happen since the CT is already disabled, so make sure we
signal them here under the assumption that we have completed a full GT
reset.
v2:
- We need to use seqno - 1 here. After acquiring ct->lock the seqno is
actually the next users seqno and not the pending one.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Cc: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
index de65b0b69679..be2388cb7205 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
@@ -86,13 +86,33 @@ invalidation_fence_signal(struct xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_fence *fence)
*
* Signal any pending invalidation fences, should be called during a GT reset
*/
- void xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_reset(struct xe_gt *gt)
+void xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_reset(struct xe_gt *gt)
{
struct xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_fence *fence, *next;
+ struct xe_guc *guc = >->uc.guc;
+ int pending_seqno;
+ /*
+ * CT channel is already disabled at this point. No new TLB requests can
+ * appear.
+ */
+
+ mutex_lock(>->uc.guc.ct.lock);
cancel_delayed_work(>->tlb_invalidation.fence_tdr);
+ /*
+ * We might have various kworkers waiting for TLB flushes to complete
+ * which are not tracked with an explicit TLB fence, however at this
+ * stage that will never happen since the CT is already disabled, so
+ * make sure we signal them here under the assumption that we have
+ * completed a full GT reset.
+ */
+ if (gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno == 1)
+ pending_seqno = TLB_INVALIDATION_SEQNO_MAX - 1;
+ else
+ pending_seqno = gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno - 1;
+ WRITE_ONCE(gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno_recv, pending_seqno);
+ wake_up_all(&guc->ct.wq);
- mutex_lock(>->uc.guc.ct.lock);
list_for_each_entry_safe(fence, next,
>->tlb_invalidation.pending_fences, link)
invalidation_fence_signal(fence);
--
2.41.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-10 9:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-10 9:40 [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 00/11] Try to handle TLB invalidations from CT fast-path Matthew Auld
2023-07-10 9:40 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 01/11] drm/xe/tlb: drop unnecessary smp_wmb() Matthew Auld
2023-07-10 9:40 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 02/11] drm/xe/tlb: ensure we access seqno_recv once Matthew Auld
2023-07-10 9:40 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 03/11] drm/xe: hold mem_access.ref for CT fast-path Matthew Auld
2023-07-10 9:40 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 04/11] drm/xe/ct: hold fast_lock when reserving space for g2h Matthew Auld
2023-07-10 9:40 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 05/11] drm/xe/tlb: increment next seqno after successful CT send Matthew Auld
2023-07-10 9:40 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 06/11] drm/xe/ct: serialise fast_lock during CT disable Matthew Auld
2023-07-10 9:40 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 07/11] drm/xe/gt: tweak placement for signalling TLB fences after GT reset Matthew Auld
2023-07-10 9:40 ` Matthew Auld [this message]
2023-07-10 9:40 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 09/11] drm/xe/tlb: print seqno_recv on fence TLB timeout Matthew Auld
2023-07-10 9:40 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 10/11] drm/xe/ct: update g2h outstanding for CTB capture Matthew Auld
2023-07-10 13:42 ` Matthew Brost
2023-07-10 9:40 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 11/11] drm/xe: handle TLB invalidations from CT fast-path Matthew Auld
2023-07-10 10:13 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for Try to handle TLB invalidations from CT fast-path (rev4) Patchwork
2023-07-10 10:13 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2023-07-10 10:15 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2023-07-10 10:19 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2023-07-10 10:19 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2023-07-10 10:20 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2023-07-10 11:06 ` [Intel-xe] ○ CI.BAT: info " Patchwork
2023-07-10 14:41 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 00/11] Try to handle TLB invalidations from CT fast-path Souza, Jose
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=20230710094037.28179-21-matthew.auld@intel.com \
--to=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
/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