Quoting Matthew Auld (2019-03-20 11:41:52)
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 11:58, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -2534,6 +2522,14 @@ void __i915_gem_object_set_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> >
> > lockdep_assert_held(&obj->mm.lock);
> >
> > + /* Make the pages coherent with the GPU (flushing any swapin). */
> > + if (obj->cache_dirty) {
> > + obj->write_domain = 0;
> > + if (i915_gem_object_has_struct_page(obj))
> > + drm_clflush_sg(pages);
> > + obj->cache_dirty = false;
> > + }
>
> Is it worth adding some special casing here for volatile objects, so
> that we avoid doing the clflush_sg every time we do set_pages for
> !llc?
>
> if (obj->cache_dirty && obj->mm.madvise == WILLNEED)
>
> Or is that meh?
No, even for volatile objects we have to be careful with what remains in
the CPU cache as that may obscure updates to the underlying page. We see
the very same problem with speculative cacheline loading.
A DONTNEED object should fail before it gets allocated pages :)
If it becomes DONTNEED in flight? Haven't considered that case, but I
think it is best we keep the pages around as we have people waiting for
them, so we should consider them in use and so only reap them after this
period of activity.
One agenda I have for local-memory is the per-fd private page pool,
where we can stuff cache flushed pages for reuse in !llc. However, all
the testing many, many years ago said that if userspace is doing the
write thing, such a cache is fruitless.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
