[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220713135022.3710682-4-bob.beckett@collabora.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 14:50:15 +0100
From: Robert Beckett <bob.beckett@...labora.com>
To: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: kernel@...labora.com, Robert Beckett <bob.beckett@...labora.com>,
Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@...el.com>,
Thomas Hellström
<thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v11 03/10] drm/i915/ttm: only trust snooping for dgfx when deciding default cache_level
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.
Signed-off-by: Robert Beckett <bob.beckett@...labora.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.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 042c2237e287..a949594237d9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
@@ -52,7 +52,9 @@ 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;
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists