Re: [PATCH v8 03/10] drm/i915/ttm: only trust snooping for dgfx when deciding default cache_level

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 6/21/22 22:00, Robert Beckett wrote:
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.
Yeah, IIRC Matthew mentioned that HAS_SNOOP() can be overridden in various ways, but not on DGFX, (at least not for DG1). So this looks correct to me.

Signed-off-by: Robert Beckett <bob.beckett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


---
  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 4c1de0b4a10f..40249fa28a7a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
@@ -46,7 +46,9 @@ 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;



[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux