lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 03/10] drm/i915/ttm: only trust snooping for dgfx when deciding default cache_level
From

On 6/21/22 22:00, Robert Beckett wrote:
> By default i915_ttm_cache_level() decides I915_CACHE_LLC if HAS_SNOOP.
> This is divergent from existing backends code which only considers
> HAS_LLC.
> Testing shows that trusting snooping on gen5- is unreliable and bsw via
> ggtt mappings, so limit DGFX for now and maintain previous behaviour.
Yeah, IIRC Matthew mentioned that HAS_SNOOP() can be overridden in
various ways, but not on DGFX, (at least not for DG1). So this looks
correct to me.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Beckett <bob.beckett@collabora.com>

Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>


> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
> index 4c1de0b4a10f..40249fa28a7a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
> @@ -46,7 +46,9 @@ static enum i915_cache_level
> i915_ttm_cache_level(struct drm_i915_private *i915, struct ttm_resource *res,
> struct ttm_tt *ttm)
> {
> - return ((HAS_LLC(i915) || HAS_SNOOP(i915)) &&
> + bool can_snoop = HAS_SNOOP(i915) && IS_DGFX(i915);
> +
> + return ((HAS_LLC(i915) || can_snoop) &&
> !i915_ttm_gtt_binds_lmem(res) &&
> ttm->caching == ttm_cached) ? I915_CACHE_LLC :
> I915_CACHE_NONE;

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-22 12:51    [W:0.476 / U:0.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site