Quoting Abodunrin, Akeem G (2021-01-11 20:25:34)
> > static void
> > batch_get_defaults(struct drm_i915_private *i915, struct batch_vals *bv) {
> > if (IS_HASWELL(i915)) {
> > - bv->max_primitives = 280;
> > - bv->max_urb_entries = MAX_URB_ENTRIES;
> > + switch (INTEL_INFO(i915)->gt) {
> > + default:
> > + case 1:
> > + bv->max_threads = 70;
> > + break;
> > + case 2:
> > + bv->max_threads = 140;
> > + break;
> > + case 3:
> > + bv->max_threads = 280;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > bv->surface_height = 16 * 16;
> > bv->surface_width = 32 * 2 * 16;
> > } else {
> > - bv->max_primitives = 128;
> > - bv->max_urb_entries = MAX_URB_ENTRIES / 2;
> > + switch (INTEL_INFO(i915)->gt) {
> > + default:
> > + case 1: /* including vlv */
> > + bv->max_threads = 36;
> > + break;
> > + case 2:
> > + bv->max_threads = 128;
> > + break;
> > + }
> Do we really need to hardcode max number of threads per gt/platform? Why not calculating the number of active threads from the no_of_slices * 1024? - Also, is "64" not the minimum number of threads supported?
ivb,byt,hsw each has different numbers of threads per subslice, and each
gt has a different number of subslice/slice (and not a simple doubling
of subslice/slice from 1 -> 2 -> 3, although the total is!).
It's a choice between encoding a tuple for (num_threads, num_subslices,
num_slices) or the combined value.
The goal is to run a shader in each HW thread to clear the thread-local
registers, and only one shader in each.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
