On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 10:45, Koenig, Christian
<Christian.Koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Am 24.01.19 um 10:28 schrieb Ard Biesheuvel:
> > On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 10:25, Koenig, Christian
> > <Christian.Koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Am 24.01.19 um 10:13 schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 05:52:50PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>>> But my concern is that it seems likely that non-cache coherent
> >>>> implementations are relying on this hack as well. There must be a
> >>>> reason that this hack is only disabled for PowerPC platforms if they
> >>>> are cache coherent, for instance, and I suspect that that reason is
> >>>> that the hack is the only thing ensuring that the CPU mapping
> >>>> attributes match the device ones used for these buffers (the vmap()ed
> >>>> ones), whereas the rings and other consistent data structures are
> >>>> using the DMA API as intended, and thus getting uncached attributes in
> >>>> the correct way.
> >>> Dave, who added that commit is on Cc together with just about everyone
> >>> involved in the review chain. Based on the previous explanation
> >>> that idea what we might want an uncached mapping for some non-coherent
> >>> architectures for this to work at all makes sense, but then again
> >>> the way to create those mappings is entirely architecture specific,
> >>> and also need a cache flushing before creating the mapping to work
> >>> properly. So my working theory is that this code never properly
> >>> worked on architectures without DMA coherent for PCIe at all, but
> >>> I'd love to be corrected by concrete examples including an explanation
> >>> of how it actually ends up working.
> >> Cache coherency is mandatory for modern GPU operation.
> >>
> >> Otherwise you can't implement a bunch of the requirements of the
> >> userspace APIs.
> >>
> >> In other words the applications doesn't inform the driver that the GPU
> >> or the CPU is accessing data, it just does it and assumes that it works.
> >>
> > Wonderful!
> >
> > In that case, do you have any objections to the patch proposed by
> > Christoph above?
>
> Yeah, the patch of Christoph actually goes way to far cause we have
> reports that this works on a bunch of other architectures.
>
> E.g. X86 64bit, PowerPC (under some conditions) and some MIPS.
>
This is *exactly* my point the whole time.
The current code has
static inline bool drm_arch_can_wc_memory(void)
{
#if defined(CONFIG_PPC) && !defined(CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CACHE)
return false;
which means the optimization is disabled *unless the system is
non-cache coherent*
So if you have reports that the optimization works on some PowerPC, it
must be non-cache coherent PowerPC, because that is the only place
where it is enabled in the first place.
> The only problematic here actually seems to be ARM, so you should
> probably just add an "#ifdef .._ARM return false;".
>
ARM/arm64 does not have a Kconfig symbol like
CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CACHE, so we can only disable it everywhere. If
there are non-coherent ARM systems that are currently working in the
same way as those non-coherent PowerPC systems, we will break them by
doing this.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
