From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: "Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
"Zbigniew Kempczyński" <zbigniew.kempczynski@intel.com>,
"Matthew Auld" <matthew.auld@intel.com>,
"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
"Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
"Juha-Pekka Heikkilä" <juha-pekka.heikkila@intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3] drm/xe: Align all 64k VRAM buffers physically when multiple of 64k.
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:23:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240822142346.818434-1-maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> (raw)
For CCS formats on affected platforms, CCS can be used freely, but
display engine requires a multiple of 64k physical pages. No other
changes are needed.
At the BO creation time we don't know if the BO will be used for CCS
or not. If the scanout flag is set, and the BO is a multiple of 64k,
we take the safe route and force the physical alignment of 64k pages.
If the BO is not a multiple of 64k, or the scanout flag was not set
at BO creation, we reject it for usage as CCS in display. The physical
pages are likely not aligned correctly, and this will cause corruption
when used as FB.
This is a slightly different approach from my previous patch. Instead
of requiring a scanout flag at FB creation, we now make all buffers of
the right size physically aligned correctly, so no change from userspace
is needed.
It will be interesting to see if it affects performance in any way,
could potentially even improve things with 64k PTE's.
Inspired by Zbigniews patch.
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Co-developed-by: Zbigniew Kempczyński <zbigniew.kempczynski@intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Juha-Pekka Heikkilä <juha-pekka.heikkila@intel.com>
---
Changes since previous version:
- Drop DISPLAY_NEED64K.
- Hardcode check for I915_FORMAT_MOD_4_TILED_BMG_CCS, only one affected.
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/intel_fb_bo.c | 5 +++++
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c | 10 ++++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c | 3 ++-
3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/intel_fb_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/intel_fb_bo.c
index f835492f73fb4..de613325e0bb0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/intel_fb_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/intel_fb_bo.c
@@ -28,6 +29,10 @@ int intel_fb_bo_framebuffer_init(struct intel_framebuffer *intel_fb,
struct xe_device *xe = to_xe_device(bo->ttm.base.dev);
int ret;
+ if (XE_IOCTL_DBG(xe, mode_cmd->modifier[0] == I915_FORMAT_MOD_4_TILED_BMG_CCS &&
+ !(bo->flags & XE_BO_FLAG_NEEDS_64K)))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
xe_bo_get(bo);
ret = ttm_bo_reserve(&bo->ttm, true, false, NULL);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
index 6ed0e19552159..dd54cbc14e9d8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
@@ -2019,6 +2019,16 @@ int xe_gem_create_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
bo_flags |= args->placement << (ffs(XE_BO_FLAG_SYSTEM) - 1);
+ /*
+ * Lets see what happens if we simply align any buffer that's
+ * a multiple of 64k to 64k in places where it's not officially
+ * needed.
+ */
+ if ((bo_flags & XE_BO_FLAG_VRAM_MASK) &&
+ !(xe->info.vram_flags & XE_VRAM_FLAGS_NEED64K) &&
+ !(args->size % SZ_64K))
+ bo_flags |= XE_BO_FLAG_NEEDS_64K;
+
if (args->flags & DRM_XE_GEM_CREATE_FLAG_NEEDS_VISIBLE_VRAM) {
if (XE_IOCTL_DBG(xe, !(bo_flags & XE_BO_FLAG_VRAM_MASK)))
return -EINVAL;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
index d1bfd0b6e9558..af215f6d6588b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
@@ -2878,7 +2878,8 @@ static int xe_vm_bind_ioctl_validate_bo(struct xe_device *xe, struct xe_bo *bo,
return -EINVAL;
}
- if (bo->flags & XE_BO_FLAG_INTERNAL_64K) {
+ if ((bo->flags & XE_BO_FLAG_INTERNAL_64K) &&
+ (xe->info.vram_flags & XE_VRAM_FLAGS_NEED64K)) {
if (XE_IOCTL_DBG(xe, obj_offset &
XE_64K_PAGE_MASK) ||
XE_IOCTL_DBG(xe, addr & XE_64K_PAGE_MASK) ||
--
2.45.2
next reply other threads:[~2024-08-22 14:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-22 14:23 Maarten Lankhorst [this message]
2024-08-22 14:46 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for drm/xe: Align all 64k VRAM buffers physically when multiple of 64k Patchwork
2024-08-22 14:46 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2024-08-22 14:48 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2024-08-22 14:55 ` [PATCH v3] " Rodrigo Vivi
2024-08-22 16:16 ` Souza, Jose
2024-08-22 14:59 ` ✓ CI.Build: success for " Patchwork
2024-08-22 15:02 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-08-22 15:03 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2024-08-22 15:22 ` ✓ CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2024-08-22 20:56 ` ✓ CI.FULL: " 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=20240822142346.818434-1-maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
--to=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=juha-pekka.heikkila@intel.com \
--cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
--cc=zbigniew.kempczynski@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