On 03/05/2023 21:39, Yang, Fei wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.c
index 8c70a0ec7d2f..27c948350b5b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.c
@@ -54,6 +54,25 @@ unsigned int i915_gem_get_pat_index(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
return INTEL_INFO(i915)->cachelevel_to_pat[level];
}
+bool i915_gem_object_has_cache_level(const struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
+ enum i915_cache_level lvl)
+{
+ /*
+ * cache_level == I915_CACHE_INVAL indicates the UMD's have set the
+ * caching policy through pat_index, in which case the KMD should
+ * leave the coherency to be managed by user space, simply return
+ * true here.
+ */
+ if (obj->cache_level == I915_CACHE_INVAL)
+ return true;
+
+ /*
+ * Otherwise the pat_index should have been converted from cache_level
+ * so that the following comparison is valid.
+ */
+ return obj->pat_index == i915_gem_get_pat_index(obj_to_i915(obj), lvl);
+}
+
struct drm_i915_gem_object *i915_gem_object_alloc(void)
{
struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
@@ -133,7 +152,7 @@ void i915_gem_object_set_cache_coherency(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
{
struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(obj->base.dev);
- obj->cache_level = cache_level;
+ obj->pat_index = i915_gem_get_pat_index(i915, cache_level);
obj->cache_level is only ever set to "invalid" from the set pat
extension? Doesn't that make it a boolean so there is no need for three
bits to hold the enum, just the "pat has been externally set" bit really?
Will update.
Thanks!
if (cache_level != I915_CACHE_NONE)
obj->cache_coherent = (I915_BO_CACHE_COHERENT_FOR_READ |
[...]
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
index 41389a32e998..9a4922da3a71 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
@@ -139,21 +139,56 @@ static const char *stringify_vma_type(const struct i915_vma *vma)
return "ppgtt";
}
-static const char *i915_cache_level_str(struct drm_i915_private *i915, int type)
-{
- switch (type) {
- case I915_CACHE_NONE: return " uncached";
- case I915_CACHE_LLC: return HAS_LLC(i915) ? " LLC" : " snooped";
- case I915_CACHE_L3_LLC: return " L3+LLC";
- case I915_CACHE_WT: return " WT";
- default: return "";
+static const char *i915_cache_level_str(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
+{
+ struct drm_i915_private *i915 = obj_to_i915(obj);
+
+ if (IS_METEORLAKE(i915)) {
+ switch (obj->pat_index) {
+ case 0: return " WB";
+ case 1: return " WT";
+ case 2: return " UC";
+ case 3: return " WB (1-Way Coh)";
+ case 4: return " WB (2-Way Coh)";
+ default: return " not defined";
+ }
+ } else if (IS_PONTEVECCHIO(i915)) {
+ switch (obj->pat_index) {
+ case 0: return " UC";
+ case 1: return " WC";
+ case 2: return " WT";
+ case 3: return " WB";
+ case 4: return " WT (CLOS1)";
+ case 5: return " WB (CLOS1)";
+ case 6: return " WT (CLOS2)";
+ case 7: return " WT (CLOS2)";
+ default: return " not defined";
+ }
+ } else if (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) >= 12) {
+ switch (obj->pat_index) {
+ case 0: return " WB";
+ case 1: return " WC";
+ case 2: return " WT";
+ case 3: return " UC";
+ default: return " not defined";
+ }
+ } else {
+ if (i915_gem_object_has_cache_level(obj, I915_CACHE_NONE))
+ return " uncached";
This will print uncached for all legacy platforms if set pat extension
has been used, regardless of the index set.
Will update. Should just use obj->pat_index here.
Thanks, it looks better to me in v5.
Are we okay with that? I find it questionable and would say no. It
diverges from >= 12 and so is confusing.
+ else if (i915_gem_object_has_cache_level(obj, I915_CACHE_LLC))
+ return HAS_LLC(i915) ? " LLC" : " snooped";
+ else if (i915_gem_object_has_cache_level(obj, I915_CACHE_L3_LLC))
+ return " L3+LLC";
+ else if (i915_gem_object_has_cache_level(obj, I915_CACHE_WT))
+ return " WT";
+ else
+ return " not defined";
Another thing is why use different names for caching modes between
"legacy" and the rest?
For new platforms the string matches bspec. For legacy platforms I think it's
still better to inherit the strings, no surprises here. What do you think?
Not 100% sure but I fear confusion from userspace developer point of
view if they have code which uses the set pat extension on all platforms
and then on some they see "WB" and one some they see "LLC" or "snooped".
Might be less confusing to use the same terminology.
But it also may be true what you say, that someone got used to old
strings.. However as they (the old strings) will only appear on old
platforms. And that the BSpec naming on old platforms does not use
WB&co, if I got that right.
I guess it is only debugfs so okay to to leave this open for later.
Regards,
Tvrtko
