-----Original Message-----
From: Auld, Matthew <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 9:46 AM
To: Cavitt, Jonathan <jonathan.cavitt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dutt, Sudeep <sudeep.dutt@xxxxxxxxx>; Siddiqui, Ayaz A <ayaz.siddiqui@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gen8_ppgtt: Use correct huge page manager for MTL
>
> On 21/02/2023 17:14, Cavitt, Jonathan wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Auld, Matthew <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 8:33 AM
> > To: Cavitt, Jonathan <jonathan.cavitt@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Dutt, Sudeep <sudeep.dutt@xxxxxxxxx>; Siddiqui, Ayaz A <ayaz.siddiqui@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] gen8_ppgtt: Use correct huge page manager for MTL
> >>
> >> On 21/02/2023 16:28, Cavitt, Jonathan wrote:
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Auld, Matthew <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 8:06 AM
> >>> To: Cavitt, Jonathan <jonathan.cavitt@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Cc: Dutt, Sudeep <sudeep.dutt@xxxxxxxxx>; Siddiqui, Ayaz A <ayaz.siddiqui@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] gen8_ppgtt: Use correct huge page manager for MTL
> >>>>
> >>>> On 17/02/2023 19:18, Jonathan Cavitt wrote:
> >>>>> MTL currently uses gen8_ppgtt_insert_huge when managing huge pages. This is because
> >>>>> MTL reports as not supporting 64K pages, or more accurately, the system that reports
> >>>>> whether a platform has 64K pages reports false for MTL. This is only half correct,
> >>>>> as the 64K page support reporting system only cares about 64K page support for LMEM,
> >>>>> which MTL doesn't have.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> MTL should be using xehpsdv_ppgtt_insert_huge. However, simply changing over to
> >>>>> using that manager doesn't resolve the issue because MTL is expecting the virtual
> >>>>> address space for the page table to be flushed after initialization, so we must also
> >>>>> add a flush statement there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> Although it looks like the hugepage mock tests are failing with this. I
> >>>> assume the mock device just uses some "max" gen version or so, which now
> >>>> triggers this path. Any ideas for that?
> >>>
> >>> With this patch applied, multiple calls to the hugepages live selftest result in a kernel panic.
> >>> If the mock tests are run immediately after the live ones, that would explain this behavior.
> >>> I was informed when this was initially debugged that the error was a known IOMMU issue
> >>> rather than some novel regression, though it's hard to tell if that was just hopeful optimism
> >>> or not at this point.
> >>
> >> In the test results we now get:
> >>
> >> 6> [183.420316] i915: Running
> >> i915_gem_huge_page_mock_selftests/igt_mock_exhaust_device_supported_pages
> >> <6> [183.436978] i915: Running
> >> i915_gem_huge_page_mock_selftests/igt_mock_memory_region_huge_pages
> >> <6> [183.445777] i915: Running
> >> i915_gem_huge_page_mock_selftests/igt_mock_ppgtt_misaligned_dma
> >> <6> [183.904531] i915: Running
> >> i915_gem_huge_page_mock_selftests/igt_mock_ppgtt_huge_fill
> >> <3> [183.912658] gtt=69632, expected=4096, size=69632, single=yes
> >> <3> [183.912784] i915/i915_gem_huge_page_mock_selftests:
> >> igt_mock_ppgtt_huge_fill failed with error -22
> >
> > if (expected_gtt & I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE_4K)
> > expected_gtt &= ~I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE_64K;
> >
> > I don't know why we're doing that to expected_gtt, but that seems to be the cause of the
> > problem in this case.
>
> I think it's due to the older huge page model, where 64K requires the
> entire page-table to all use 64K pages underneath (pde level hint), so
> if we see 4K in there somewhere then we don't expect to get back 64K
> GTT. But on newer HW we now have have pte level hint, so I think the
> above can just be removed with this patch, since that's what the mock
> device now uses.
Seems right. I guess that would be... what? Is it:
A. Platform specific? I.E. we need s generation check in the selftest to proceed, such as the following:
if (expected_gtt & I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE_4K && GRAPHICS_VER(i915) >= 12)
B. Systems specific? I.E. we have a special check for this functionality such as:
if (expected_gtt & I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE_4K && has_pte_level_hint(i915))
C. The new norm. I.E. we can just remove this line from the test and everything will work out fine.
-Jonathan Cavitt
>
> > -Jonathan Cavitt
> >
> >>
> >> I didn't look any deeper than that though. Note that this a just a
> >> mock/fake device. I don't think its IOMMU related.
> >>
> >>> -Jonathan Cavitt
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_ppgtt.c | 3 ++-
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_ppgtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_ppgtt.c
> >>>>> index 4daaa6f55668..9c571185395f 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_ppgtt.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_ppgtt.c
> >>>>> @@ -570,6 +570,7 @@ xehpsdv_ppgtt_insert_huge(struct i915_address_space *vm,
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> } while (rem >= page_size && index < max);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + drm_clflush_virt_range(vaddr, PAGE_SIZE);
> >>>>> vma_res->page_sizes_gtt |= page_size;
> >>>>> } while (iter->sg && sg_dma_len(iter->sg));
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> @@ -707,7 +708,7 @@ static void gen8_ppgtt_insert(struct i915_address_space *vm,
> >>>>> struct sgt_dma iter = sgt_dma(vma_res);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if (vma_res->bi.page_sizes.sg > I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE) {
> >>>>> - if (HAS_64K_PAGES(vm->i915))
> >>>>> + if (GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(vm->i915) >= IP_VER(12, 50))
> >>>>> xehpsdv_ppgtt_insert_huge(vm, vma_res, &iter, cache_level, flags);
> >>>>> else
> >>>>> gen8_ppgtt_insert_huge(vm, vma_res, &iter, cache_level, flags);
> >>>>
> >>
>
