[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/icl: Fix context RPCS programming
Tvrtko Ursulin
tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com
Mon Sep 3 11:11:50 UTC 2018
On 31/08/2018 17:52, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> On 31/08/2018 12:53, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>
>> There are two issues with the current RPCS programming for Icelake:
>>
>> Expansion of the slice count bitfield has been missed, as well as the
>> required programming workaround for the subslice count bitfield size
>> limitation.
>>
>> 1)
>>
>> Bitfield width for configuring the active slice count has grown so we
>> need
>> to program the GEN8_R_PWR_CLK_STATE accordingly.
>>
>> Current code was always requesting eight times the number of slices (due
>> writting to a bitfield starting three bits higher than it should). These
>> requests were luckily a) capped by the hardware to the available
>> number of
>> slices, and b) we haven't yet exported the code to ask for reduced slice
>> configurations.
>>
>> Due both of the above there was no impact from this incorrect programming
>> but we should still fix it.
>>
>> 2)
>>
>> Due subslice count bitfield being only three bits wide and furthermore
>> capped to a maximum documented value of four, special programming
>> workaround is needed to enable more than four subslices.
>>
>> With this programming driver has to consider the GT configuration as
>> 2x4x8, while the hardware internally translates this to 1x8x8.
>>
>> A limitation stemming from this is that either a subslice count between
>> one and four can be selected, or a subslice count equaling the total
>> number of subslices in all selected slices. In other words, odd subslice
>> counts greater than four are impossible, as are odd subslice counts
>> greater than a single slice subslice count.
>>
>> This also had no impact in the current code base due breakage from 1)
>> always reqesting more than one slice.
>>
>> While fixing this we also add some asserts to flag up any future bitfield
>> overflows.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>> Bspec: 12247
>> Reported-by: tony.ye at intel.com
>> Suggested-by: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin at intel.com>
>> Cc: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin at intel.com>
>> Cc: tony.ye at intel.com
>> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 2 +
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 2 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>> index f2321785cbd6..09bc8e730ee1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
>> @@ -344,6 +344,8 @@ static inline bool i915_mmio_reg_valid(i915_reg_t
>> reg)
>> #define GEN8_RPCS_S_CNT_ENABLE (1 << 18)
>> #define GEN8_RPCS_S_CNT_SHIFT 15
>> #define GEN8_RPCS_S_CNT_MASK (0x7 << GEN8_RPCS_S_CNT_SHIFT)
>> +#define GEN11_RPCS_S_CNT_SHIFT 12
>> +#define GEN11_RPCS_S_CNT_MASK (0x3f << GEN11_RPCS_S_CNT_SHIFT)
>> #define GEN8_RPCS_SS_CNT_ENABLE (1 << 11)
>> #define GEN8_RPCS_SS_CNT_SHIFT 8
>> #define GEN8_RPCS_SS_CNT_MASK (0x7 << GEN8_RPCS_SS_CNT_SHIFT)
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
>> index f8ceb9c99dd6..323c46319cb8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
>> @@ -2480,6 +2480,9 @@ int logical_xcs_ring_init(struct intel_engine_cs
>> *engine)
>> static u32
>> make_rpcs(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> {
>> + bool subslice_pg = INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu.has_subslice_pg;
>> + u8 slices = hweight8(INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu.slice_mask);
>> + u8 subslices =
>> hweight8(INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu.subslice_mask[0]);
>> u32 rpcs = 0;
>> /*
>> @@ -2489,6 +2492,38 @@ make_rpcs(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) < 9)
>> return 0;
>> + /*
>> + * Since the SScount bitfield in GEN8_R_PWR_CLK_STATE is only
>> three bits
>> + * wide and Icelake has up to eight subslices, specfial
>> programming is
>> + * needed in order to correctly enable all subslices.
>> + *
>> + * According to documentation software must consider the
>> configuration
>> + * as 2x4x8 and hardware will translate this to 1x8x8.
>> + *
>> + * Furthemore, even though SScount is three bits, maximum documented
>> + * value for it is four. From this some rules/restrictions follow:
>> + *
>> + * 1.
>> + * If enabled subslice count is greater than four, two whole
>> slices must
>> + * be enabled instead.
>> + *
>> + * 2.
>> + * When more than one slice is enabled, hardware ignores the
>> subslice
>> + * count altogether.
>> + *
>> + * From these restrictions it follows that it is not possible to
>> enable
>> + * a count of subslices between the SScount maximum of four
>> restriction,
>> + * and the maximum available number on a particular SKU. Either all
>> + * subslices are enabled, or a count between one and four on the
>> first
>> + * slice.
>> + */
>> + if (IS_GEN11(dev_priv) && slices == 1 && subslices >= 4) {
>> + GEM_BUG_ON(subslices & 1);
>> +
>> + subslice_pg = false;
>
>
> Err... Now I'm looking at the documentation again and I see this for the
> subslice enable field :
>
>
> Enable Subslice Count Request.
>
> 0 = Use Async subslice count
>
> 1 = Use SScount in this register
>
>
> Searching for "Async subslice count" leads me to another register (BSpec
> 9497).
>
> Really confused as to what this does :|
>
> Is the hardware then reading for that second register if you set
> SSCountEn to 0?
I think it isn't. Well, by transitive property of subslice shutdown not
being supported unless slice count is one. So when we set slice count to
greater than one, it doesn't matter what we put in any subslice control
fields.
As bspec 33575 says programming via R_PWR_CLK_STATE is preferred over
the Async mode config, I think we are overall good with this patch.
>
>
> We could put max(hweight8(sseu.subslice_mask[0]), 4) in SSCount, but
> it's unclear what's right...
>
>
> If you feel like this needs to be investigated, go ahead.
>
> Otherwise I have a minor style suggestion below, either way :
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin at intel.com>
>
>
>> + slices *= 2;
>> + }
>> +
>> /*
>> * Starting in Gen9, render power gating can leave
>> * slice/subslice/EU in a partially enabled state. We
>> @@ -2496,24 +2531,52 @@ make_rpcs(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> * enablement.
>> */
>> if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu.has_slice_pg) {
>> - rpcs |= GEN8_RPCS_S_CNT_ENABLE;
>> - rpcs |= hweight8(INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu.slice_mask) <<
>> - GEN8_RPCS_S_CNT_SHIFT;
>> - rpcs |= GEN8_RPCS_ENABLE;
>
>
> I would use a u32 val; like you did for the subslice part below and just
> OR things together.
>
> Just feels a bit more readable, but up to you.
I know, was 50-50 on this myself. You tipped the scale now so I'll
respin. Thanks for the r-b, I'll keep it for this tweak.
Regards,
Tvrtko
>
>> + u32 mask;
>> +
>> + rpcs = slices;
>> +
>> + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 11) {
>> + mask = GEN11_RPCS_S_CNT_MASK;
>> + rpcs <<= GEN11_RPCS_S_CNT_SHIFT;
>> + } else {
>> + mask = GEN8_RPCS_S_CNT_MASK;
>> + rpcs <<= GEN8_RPCS_S_CNT_SHIFT;
>> + }
>> +
>> + GEM_BUG_ON(rpcs & ~mask);
>> + rpcs &= mask;
>> +
>> + rpcs |= GEN8_RPCS_ENABLE | GEN8_RPCS_S_CNT_ENABLE;
>> }
>> - if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu.has_subslice_pg) {
>> - rpcs |= GEN8_RPCS_SS_CNT_ENABLE;
>> - rpcs |= hweight8(INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu.subslice_mask[0]) <<
>> - GEN8_RPCS_SS_CNT_SHIFT;
>> - rpcs |= GEN8_RPCS_ENABLE;
>> + if (subslice_pg) {
>> + u32 val = subslices;
>> +
>> + val <<= GEN8_RPCS_SS_CNT_SHIFT;
>> +
>> + GEM_BUG_ON(val & ~GEN8_RPCS_SS_CNT_MASK);
>> + val &= GEN8_RPCS_SS_CNT_MASK;
>> +
>> + rpcs |= GEN8_RPCS_ENABLE | GEN8_RPCS_SS_CNT_ENABLE | val;
>> }
>> if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu.has_eu_pg) {
>> - rpcs |= INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu.eu_per_subslice <<
>> - GEN8_RPCS_EU_MIN_SHIFT;
>> - rpcs |= INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu.eu_per_subslice <<
>> - GEN8_RPCS_EU_MAX_SHIFT;
>> + u32 val;
>> +
>> + val = INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu.eu_per_subslice <<
>> + GEN8_RPCS_EU_MIN_SHIFT;
>> + GEM_BUG_ON(val & ~GEN8_RPCS_EU_MIN_MASK);
>> + val &= GEN8_RPCS_EU_MIN_MASK;
>> +
>> + rpcs |= val;
>> +
>> + val = INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->sseu.eu_per_subslice <<
>> + GEN8_RPCS_EU_MAX_SHIFT;
>> + GEM_BUG_ON(val & ~GEN8_RPCS_EU_MAX_MASK);
>> + val &= GEN8_RPCS_EU_MAX_MASK;
>> +
>> + rpcs |= val;
>> +
>> rpcs |= GEN8_RPCS_ENABLE;
>> }
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list