On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:38:17PM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:00:09AM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:15:42PM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
> > > Xe_HP removed "slice" as a first-class unit in the hardware design.
> > > Instead we now have a single pool of subslices (which are now referred
> > > to as "DSS") that different hardware units have different ways of
> > > grouping ("compute slices," "geometry slices," etc.). For the purposes
> > > of topology representation, we treat Xe_HP-based platforms as having a
> > > single slice that contains all of the platform's DSS. There's no need
> > > to allocate storage space for (max legacy slices * max dss); let's
> > > update some of our macros to minimize the storage requirement for sseu
> > > topology. We'll also document some of the constants to make it a little
> > > bit more clear what they represent.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_types.h | 2 +-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_sseu.h | 47 +++++++++++++++-----
> > > 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_types.h
> > > index 4fbf45a74ec0..f9e246004bc0 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_types.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_types.h
> > > @@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ intel_engine_has_relative_mmio(const struct intel_engine_cs * const engine)
> > >
> > > #define for_each_instdone_gslice_dss_xehp(dev_priv_, sseu_, iter_, gslice_, dss_) \
> > > for ((iter_) = 0, (gslice_) = 0, (dss_) = 0; \
> > > - (iter_) < GEN_MAX_SUBSLICES; \
> > > + (iter_) < GEN_SS_MASK_SIZE; \
> > > (iter_)++, (gslice_) = (iter_) / GEN_DSS_PER_GSLICE, \
> > > (dss_) = (iter_) % GEN_DSS_PER_GSLICE) \
> > > for_each_if(intel_sseu_has_subslice((sseu_), 0, (iter_)))
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_sseu.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_sseu.h
> > > index 8a79cd8eaab4..4f59eadbb61a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_sseu.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_sseu.h
> > > @@ -15,26 +15,49 @@ struct drm_i915_private;
> > > struct intel_gt;
> > > struct drm_printer;
> > >
> > > -#define GEN_MAX_SLICES (3) /* SKL upper bound */
> > > -#define GEN_MAX_SUBSLICES (32) /* XEHPSDV upper bound */
> > > -#define GEN_SSEU_STRIDE(max_entries) DIV_ROUND_UP(max_entries, BITS_PER_BYTE)
> > > -#define GEN_MAX_SUBSLICE_STRIDE GEN_SSEU_STRIDE(GEN_MAX_SUBSLICES)
> > > -#define GEN_MAX_EUS (16) /* TGL upper bound */
> > > -#define GEN_MAX_EU_STRIDE GEN_SSEU_STRIDE(GEN_MAX_EUS)
> > > +/*
> > > + * Maximum number of legacy slices. Legacy slices no longer exist starting on
> > > + * Xe_HP ("gslices," "cslices," etc. on Xe_HP and beyond are a different
> > > + * concept and are not expressed through fusing).
> > > + */
> > > +#define GEN_MAX_LEGACY_SLICES 3
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Maximum number of subslices that can exist within a legacy slice. This is
> > > + * only relevant to pre-Xe_HP platforms (Xe_HP and beyond use the GEN_MAX_DSS
> > > + * value below).
> > > + */
> > > +#define GEN_MAX_LEGACY_SUBSLICES 6
> >
> > instead of calling the old legacy, maybe just add the XEHP_ prefix to
> > the new ones?
>
> Maybe a "HSW_" prefix on the old ones would be better? People still use
> the termm 'subslice' in casual discussion when talking about DSS, so I
> want to somehow distinguish that what we're talking about here is a
> different, older design than we have on modern platforms.
Hmm, or maybe just "GEN_MAX_SUBSLICES_PER_LEGACY_SLICE" to tie it into
the slice definition above?
Matt
>
>
> Matt
>
> >
> > > +
> > > +/* Maximum number of DSS on newer platforms (Xe_HP and beyond). */
> > > +#define GEN_MAX_DSS 32
> > > +
> > > +/* Maximum number of EUs that can exist within a subslice or DSS. */
> > > +#define GEN_MAX_EUS_PER_SS 16
> > > +
> > > +#define MAX(a, b) ((a) > (b) ? (a) : (b))
> >
> > what's worse, include kernel.h in another header file or redefine MAX
> > everywhere? Re-defining it in headers we risk situations in which the
> > include order may create warnings about defining it in multiple places.
> >
> >
> > > +
> > > +/* The maximum number of bits needed to express each subslice/DSS independently */
> > > +#define GEN_SS_MASK_SIZE MAX(GEN_MAX_DSS, \
> > > + GEN_MAX_LEGACY_SLICES * GEN_MAX_LEGACY_SUBSLICES)
> > > +
> > > +#define GEN_SSEU_STRIDE(max_entries) DIV_ROUND_UP(max_entries, BITS_PER_BYTE)
> > > +#define GEN_MAX_SUBSLICE_STRIDE GEN_SSEU_STRIDE(GEN_SS_MASK_SIZE)
> > > +#define GEN_MAX_EU_STRIDE GEN_SSEU_STRIDE(GEN_MAX_EUS_PER_SS)
> > >
> > > #define GEN_DSS_PER_GSLICE 4
> > > #define GEN_DSS_PER_CSLICE 8
> > > #define GEN_DSS_PER_MSLICE 8
> > >
> > > -#define GEN_MAX_GSLICES (GEN_MAX_SUBSLICES / GEN_DSS_PER_GSLICE)
> > > -#define GEN_MAX_CSLICES (GEN_MAX_SUBSLICES / GEN_DSS_PER_CSLICE)
> > > +#define GEN_MAX_GSLICES (GEN_MAX_DSS / GEN_DSS_PER_GSLICE)
> > > +#define GEN_MAX_CSLICES (GEN_MAX_DSS / GEN_DSS_PER_CSLICE)
> > >
> > > struct sseu_dev_info {
> > > u8 slice_mask;
> > > - u8 subslice_mask[GEN_MAX_SLICES * GEN_MAX_SUBSLICE_STRIDE];
> > > - u8 geometry_subslice_mask[GEN_MAX_SLICES * GEN_MAX_SUBSLICE_STRIDE];
> > > - u8 compute_subslice_mask[GEN_MAX_SLICES * GEN_MAX_SUBSLICE_STRIDE];
> > > - u8 eu_mask[GEN_MAX_SLICES * GEN_MAX_SUBSLICES * GEN_MAX_EU_STRIDE];
> > > + u8 subslice_mask[GEN_SS_MASK_SIZE];
> > > + u8 geometry_subslice_mask[GEN_SS_MASK_SIZE];
> > > + u8 compute_subslice_mask[GEN_SS_MASK_SIZE];
> > > + u8 eu_mask[GEN_SS_MASK_SIZE * GEN_MAX_EU_STRIDE];
> >
> >
> > Aside the minor things above, everything look correct.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > thanks
> > Lucas De Marchi
> >
> > > u16 eu_total;
> > > u8 eu_per_subslice;
> > > u8 min_eu_in_pool;
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
>
> --
> Matt Roper
> Graphics Software Engineer
> VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
> Intel Corporation
> (916) 356-2795
--
Matt Roper
Graphics Software Engineer
VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
Intel Corporation
(916) 356-2795
