[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu8OkbHwY5UBxahpQpM_gKh2331pQ6o-4YyJdLurbFNHvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 18:59:10 +0100
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To: Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
David Zhou <David1.Zhou@....com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Michel Daenzer <michel.daenzer@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, Junwei Zhang <Jerry.Zhang@....com>,
Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
Christian Koenig <christian.koenig@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] drm: disable WC optimization for cache coherent
devices on non-x86
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 18:55, Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net> wrote:
>
> On 2019-01-21 5:30 p.m., Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 17:22, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Until that happens we should just change the driver ifdefs to default
> >> the hacks to off and only enable them on setups where we 100%
> >> positively know that they actually work. And document that fact
> >> in big fat comments.
> >
> > Well, as I mentioned in my commit log as well, if we default to off
> > unless CONFIG_X86, we may break working setups on MIPS and Power where
> > the device is in fact non-cache coherent, and relies on this
> > 'optimization' to get things working.
>
> FWIW, the amdgpu driver doesn't rely on non-snooped transfers for
> correct basic operation (the scenario Christian brought up is a very
> specialized use-case), so that shouldn't be an issue.
>
The point is that this is only true for x86.
On other architectures, the use of non-cached mappings on the CPU side
means that you /do/ rely on non-snooped transfers, since if those
transfers turn out not to snoop inadvertently, the accesses are
incoherent with the CPU's view of memory.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists