>> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_priv->irq_lock, flags); >> > + ilk_enable_gt_irq(dev_priv, GT_PARITY_ERROR); >> >> Is it actually safe to enable the second slice irq when there's no >> second slice? This docs say it's just "reserved", but no mention >> whether it RO or could there be side effects. >Tests on my machine appear to work. But I don't know for certain. Bryan, could you answer this? On the Windows driver we enable the IRQ on all HSW skus and haven't seen any issues. -----Original Message----- From: Ben Widawsky [mailto:ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:46 AM To: Ville Syrjälä; Bell, Bryan J Cc: Widawsky, Benjamin; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Venkatesh, Vishnu Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] drm/i915: Add second slice l3 remapping On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:38:01PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:28:31PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > Certain HSW SKUs have a second bank of L3. This L3 remapping has a > > separate register set, and interrupt from the first "slice". A slice > > is simply a term to define some subset of the GPU's l3 cache. This > > patch implements both the interrupt handler, and ability to > > communicate with userspace about this second slice. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 9 ++-- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 26 ++++++---- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++------------ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 6 +++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sysfs.c | 34 ++++++++++--- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 6 +-- > > include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h | 8 ++-- > > 7 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h index 81ba5bb..eb90461 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > > @@ -918,9 +918,11 @@ struct i915_ums_state { > > int mm_suspended; > > }; > > > > +#define MAX_L3_SLICES 2 > > struct intel_l3_parity { > > - u32 *remap_info; > > + u32 *remap_info[MAX_L3_SLICES]; > > struct work_struct error_work; > > + int which_slice; > > }; > > > > struct i915_gem_mm { > > @@ -1686,7 +1688,8 @@ struct drm_i915_file_private { > > > > #define HAS_FORCE_WAKE(dev) (INTEL_INFO(dev)->has_force_wake) > > > > -#define HAS_L3_GPU_CACHE(dev) (IS_IVYBRIDGE(dev) || > > IS_HASWELL(dev)) > > +#define HAS_L3_GPU_CACHE(dev) (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 7) #define > > +NUM_L3_SLICES(dev) (IS_HSW_GT3(dev) ? 2 : HAS_L3_GPU_CACHE(dev)) > > > > #define GT_FREQUENCY_MULTIPLIER 50 > > > > @@ -1947,7 +1950,7 @@ bool i915_gem_clflush_object(struct > > drm_i915_gem_object *obj, bool force); int __must_check > > i915_gem_object_finish_gpu(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj); int > > __must_check i915_gem_init(struct drm_device *dev); int > > __must_check i915_gem_init_hw(struct drm_device *dev); -void > > i915_gem_l3_remap(struct drm_device *dev); > > +void i915_gem_l3_remap(struct drm_device *dev, int slice); > > void i915_gem_init_swizzling(struct drm_device *dev); void > > i915_gem_cleanup_ringbuffer(struct drm_device *dev); int > > __must_check i915_gpu_idle(struct drm_device *dev); diff --git > > a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > index 5b510a3..b11f7d6c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > @@ -4256,16 +4256,21 @@ i915_gem_idle(struct drm_device *dev) > > return 0; > > } > > > > -void i915_gem_l3_remap(struct drm_device *dev) > > +void i915_gem_l3_remap(struct drm_device *dev, int slice) > > { > > drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > > + u32 reg_base = GEN7_L3LOG_BASE + (slice * 0x200); > > + u32 *remap_info = dev_priv->l3_parity.remap_info[slice]; > > u32 misccpctl; > > int i; > > > > if (!HAS_L3_GPU_CACHE(dev)) > > return; > > > > - if (!dev_priv->l3_parity.remap_info) > > + if (NUM_L3_SLICES(dev) < 2 && slice) > > + return; > > This check is redundant as we should never populate > l3_parity.remap_info[1] when there's no second slice. > Got it. Smashed the early exit check together while at it. > > + > > + if (!remap_info) > > return; > > > > misccpctl = I915_READ(GEN7_MISCCPCTL); @@ -4273,17 +4278,17 @@ > > void i915_gem_l3_remap(struct drm_device *dev) > > POSTING_READ(GEN7_MISCCPCTL); > > > > for (i = 0; i < GEN7_L3LOG_SIZE; i += 4) { > > - u32 remap = I915_READ(GEN7_L3LOG_BASE + i); > > - if (remap && remap != dev_priv->l3_parity.remap_info[i/4]) > > + u32 remap = I915_READ(reg_base + i); > > + if (remap && remap != remap_info[i/4]) > > DRM_DEBUG("0x%x was already programmed to %x\n", > > - GEN7_L3LOG_BASE + i, remap); > > - if (remap && !dev_priv->l3_parity.remap_info[i/4]) > > + reg_base + i, remap); > > + if (remap && !remap_info[i/4]) > > DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Clearing remapped register\n"); > > - I915_WRITE(GEN7_L3LOG_BASE + i, dev_priv->l3_parity.remap_info[i/4]); > > + I915_WRITE(reg_base + i, remap_info[i/4]); > > } > > > > /* Make sure all the writes land before disabling dop clock gating */ > > - POSTING_READ(GEN7_L3LOG_BASE); > > + POSTING_READ(reg_base); > > > > I915_WRITE(GEN7_MISCCPCTL, misccpctl); } @@ -4377,7 +4382,7 @@ > > int i915_gem_init_hw(struct drm_device *dev) { > > drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > > - int ret; > > + int ret, i; > > > > if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 6 && !intel_enable_gtt()) > > return -EIO; > > @@ -4396,7 +4401,8 @@ i915_gem_init_hw(struct drm_device *dev) > > I915_WRITE(GEN7_MSG_CTL, temp); > > } > > > > - i915_gem_l3_remap(dev); > > + for (i = 0; i < NUM_L3_SLICES(dev); i++) > > + i915_gem_l3_remap(dev, i); > > > > i915_gem_init_swizzling(dev); > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c index 13d26cf..62cdf05 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > > @@ -882,9 +882,10 @@ static void ivybridge_parity_work(struct work_struct *work) > > drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = container_of(work, drm_i915_private_t, > > l3_parity.error_work); > > u32 error_status, row, bank, subbank; > > - char *parity_event[5]; > > + char *parity_event[6]; > > uint32_t misccpctl; > > unsigned long flags; > > + uint8_t slice = 0; > > > > /* We must turn off DOP level clock gating to access the L3 registers. > > * In order to prevent a get/put style interface, acquire struct > > mutex @@ -892,45 +893,63 @@ static void ivybridge_parity_work(struct work_struct *work) > > */ > > mutex_lock(&dev_priv->dev->struct_mutex); > > > > + /* If we've screwed up tracking, just let the interrupt fire again */ > > + if (WARN_ON(!dev_priv->l3_parity.which_slice)) > > + goto out; > > + > > misccpctl = I915_READ(GEN7_MISCCPCTL); > > I915_WRITE(GEN7_MISCCPCTL, misccpctl & ~GEN7_DOP_CLOCK_GATE_ENABLE); > > POSTING_READ(GEN7_MISCCPCTL); > > > > - error_status = I915_READ(GEN7_L3CDERRST1); > > - row = GEN7_PARITY_ERROR_ROW(error_status); > > - bank = GEN7_PARITY_ERROR_BANK(error_status); > > - subbank = GEN7_PARITY_ERROR_SUBBANK(error_status); > > + while ((slice = ffs(dev_priv->l3_parity.which_slice)) != 0) { > > + u32 reg; > > > > - I915_WRITE(GEN7_L3CDERRST1, GEN7_PARITY_ERROR_VALID | > > - GEN7_L3CDERRST1_ENABLE); > > - POSTING_READ(GEN7_L3CDERRST1); > > + if (WARN_ON(slice >= MAX_L3_SLICES)) > > + break; > > Could be >= NUM_L3_SLICES(dev) for a bit of extra paranoia. Also we > would fail to clear invalid bits from which_slice in this case, and > thus we'd get the WARN every time the work runs. But I guess this > should never happen in any case so probably not worth worrying about > this too much. Not worth worrying, but I didn't mean to be so noisy. I've fixed this with WARN_ON_ONCE. > > > > > - I915_WRITE(GEN7_MISCCPCTL, misccpctl); > > + dev_priv->l3_parity.which_slice &= ~(1<<slice); > > > > - spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_priv->irq_lock, flags); > > - ilk_enable_gt_irq(dev_priv, GT_RENDER_L3_PARITY_ERROR_INTERRUPT); > > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_priv->irq_lock, flags); > > + reg = GEN7_L3CDERRST1 + (slice * 0x200); > > > > - mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->dev->struct_mutex); > > + error_status = I915_READ(reg); > > + row = GEN7_PARITY_ERROR_ROW(error_status); > > + bank = GEN7_PARITY_ERROR_BANK(error_status); > > + subbank = GEN7_PARITY_ERROR_SUBBANK(error_status); > > + > > + I915_WRITE(reg, GEN7_PARITY_ERROR_VALID | GEN7_L3CDERRST1_ENABLE); > > + POSTING_READ(reg); > > + > > + parity_event[0] = I915_L3_PARITY_UEVENT "=1"; > > + parity_event[1] = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "ROW=%d", row); > > + parity_event[2] = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "BANK=%d", bank); > > + parity_event[3] = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "SUBBANK=%d", subbank); > > + parity_event[4] = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "SLICE=%d", slice); > > + parity_event[5] = NULL; > > > > - parity_event[0] = I915_L3_PARITY_UEVENT "=1"; > > - parity_event[1] = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "ROW=%d", row); > > - parity_event[2] = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "BANK=%d", bank); > > - parity_event[3] = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "SUBBANK=%d", subbank); > > - parity_event[4] = NULL; > > + kobject_uevent_env(&dev_priv->dev->primary->kdev.kobj, > > + KOBJ_CHANGE, parity_event); > > > > - kobject_uevent_env(&dev_priv->dev->primary->kdev.kobj, > > - KOBJ_CHANGE, parity_event); > > + DRM_DEBUG("Parity error: Slice = %d, Row = %d, Bank = %d, Sub bank = %d.\n", > > + slice, row, bank, subbank); > > > > - DRM_DEBUG("Parity error: Row = %d, Bank = %d, Sub bank = %d.\n", > > - row, bank, subbank); > > + kfree(parity_event[4]); > > + kfree(parity_event[3]); > > + kfree(parity_event[2]); > > + kfree(parity_event[1]); > > + } > > + > > + I915_WRITE(GEN7_MISCCPCTL, misccpctl); > > + > > +out: > > + WARN_ON(dev_priv->l3_parity.which_slice); > > First I figured the irq could rearm this behind our back, but we > disable the irq until the work is done. So yeah, this is fine. > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_priv->irq_lock, flags); > > + ilk_enable_gt_irq(dev_priv, GT_PARITY_ERROR); > > Is it actually safe to enable the second slice irq when there's no > second slice? This docs say it's just "reserved", but no mention > whether it RO or could there be side effects. Tests on my machine appear to work. But I don't know for certain. Bryan, could you answer this? > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_priv->irq_lock, flags); > > > > - kfree(parity_event[3]); > > - kfree(parity_event[2]); > > - kfree(parity_event[1]); > > + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->dev->struct_mutex); > > } > > > > -static void ivybridge_parity_error_irq_handler(struct drm_device > > *dev) > > +static void ivybridge_parity_error_irq_handler(struct drm_device > > +*dev, u32 iir) > > { > > drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = (drm_i915_private_t *) > > dev->dev_private; > > > > @@ -938,9 +957,12 @@ static void ivybridge_parity_error_irq_handler(struct drm_device *dev) > > return; > > > > spin_lock(&dev_priv->irq_lock); > > - ilk_disable_gt_irq(dev_priv, GT_RENDER_L3_PARITY_ERROR_INTERRUPT); > > + ilk_disable_gt_irq(dev_priv, GT_PARITY_ERROR); > > spin_unlock(&dev_priv->irq_lock); > > > > + iir &= GT_PARITY_ERROR; > > + dev_priv->l3_parity.which_slice = > > + 1 << (iir & GT_RENDER_L3_PARITY_ERROR_INTERRUPT_S1 ? 1 : 0); > > What if both slices report an error at the same time? I was thinking that such an event can not occur, but on rethinking it you are right that it's possible. I really hope this never happens, but it's fixed. Anyway, it should have been |=, not = [snip] I'll resend the patch after Bryan answers the question about both interrupts. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
