From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mauro.chehab@linux.intel.com>
To: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Mauro Carvalho Chehab" <mchehab@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
"David Airlie" <airlied@linux.ie>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
"Lucas De Marchi" <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Chris Wilson" <chris.p.wilson@intel.com>,
"Rodrigo Vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
"Dave Airlie" <airlied@redhat.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 05/21] drm/i915/gt: Skip TLB invalidations once wedged
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 18:06:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220718180630.7bef2fd9@maurocar-mobl2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d51882e0-6864-7a49-ae16-f7213dc716c4@linux.intel.com>
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:45:22 +0100
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 14/07/2022 13:06, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > From: Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson@intel.com>
> >
> > Skip all further TLB invalidations once the device is wedged and
> > had been reset, as, on such cases, it can no longer process instructions
> > on the GPU and the user no longer has access to the TLB's in each engine.
> >
> > That helps to reduce the performance regression introduced by TLB
> > invalidate logic.
> >
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Fixes: 7938d61591d3 ("drm/i915: Flush TLBs before releasing backing store")
>
> Is the claim of a performance regression this solved based on a wedged
> GPU which does not work any more to the extend where mmio tlb
> invalidation requests keep timing out? If so please clarify in the
> commit text and then it looks good to me. Even if it is IMO a very
> borderline situation to declare something a fix.
Indeed this helps on a borderline situation: if GT is wedged, TLB
invalidation will timeout, so it makes sense to keep the patch with a
comment like:
drm/i915/gt: Skip TLB invalidations once wedged
Skip all further TLB invalidations once the device is wedged and
had been reset, as, on such cases, it can no longer process instructions
on the GPU and the user no longer has access to the TLB's in each engine.
So, an attempt to do a TLB cache invalidation will produce a timeout.
That helps to reduce the performance regression introduced by TLB
invalidate logic.
Regards,
Mauro
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-18 16:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1657800199.git.mchehab@kernel.org>
2022-07-14 12:06 ` [PATCH v2 01/21] drm/i915/gt: Ignore TLB invalidations on idle engines Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2022-07-18 13:16 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-07-18 14:53 ` [Intel-gfx] " Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2022-07-18 15:01 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-07-18 15:50 ` David Laight
2022-07-19 7:24 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-07-19 7:45 ` David Laight
2022-07-22 11:56 ` Andi Shyti
2022-07-14 12:06 ` [PATCH v2 03/21] drm/i915/gt: Invalidate TLB of the OA unit at TLB invalidations Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2022-07-18 13:24 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-07-22 11:57 ` Andi Shyti
2022-07-14 12:06 ` [PATCH v2 04/21] drm/i915/gt: Only invalidate TLBs exposed to user manipulation Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2022-07-18 13:39 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-07-18 16:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2022-07-22 11:58 ` Andi Shyti
2022-07-14 12:06 ` [PATCH v2 05/21] drm/i915/gt: Skip TLB invalidations once wedged Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2022-07-18 13:45 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-07-18 16:06 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab [this message]
2022-07-19 7:19 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-07-22 12:00 ` Andi Shyti
2022-07-14 12:06 ` [PATCH v2 06/21] drm/i915/gt: Batch TLB invalidations Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2022-07-18 13:52 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-07-20 7:13 ` [Intel-gfx] " Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2022-07-20 10:49 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-07-20 10:54 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-07-27 11:48 ` [Intel-gfx] " Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2022-07-27 12:56 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-07-28 6:32 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2022-07-28 7:26 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2022-07-28 10:11 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
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=20220718180630.7bef2fd9@maurocar-mobl2 \
--to=mauro.chehab@linux.intel.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=airlied@redhat.com \
--cc=chris.p.wilson@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.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