[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 2/5] drm/i915: use pat_index instead of cache_level

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 04/05/2023 17:06, Yang, Fei wrote:
>  > On 04/05/2023 00:02, fei.yang at intel.com wrote:
>  >> From: Fei Yang <fei.yang at intel.com>
>  >>
>  >> Currently the KMD is using enum i915_cache_level to set caching 
> policy for
>  >> buffer objects. This is flaky because the PAT index which really 
> controls
>  >> the caching behavior in PTE has far more levels than what's defined 
> in the
>  >> enum. In addition, the PAT index is platform dependent, having to 
> translate
>  >> between i915_cache_level and PAT index is not reliable, and makes 
> the code
>  >> more complicated.
>  >>
>  >>>From UMD's perspective there is also a necessity to set caching 
> policy for
>  >> performance fine tuning. It's much easier for the UMD to directly 
> use PAT
>  >> index because the behavior of each PAT index is clearly defined in 
> Bspec.
>  >> Having the abstracted i915_cache_level sitting in between would only 
> cause
>  >> more ambiguity.
>  >>
>  >> For these reasons this patch replaces i915_cache_level with PAT 
> index. Also
>  >> note, the cache_level is not completely removed yet, because the KMD 
> still
>  >> has the need of creating buffer objects with simple cache settings 
> such as
>  >> cached, uncached, or writethrough. For such simple cases, using 
> cache_level
>  >> would help simplify the code.
>  >>
>  >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson at linux.intel.com>
>  >> Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
>  >> Signed-off-by: Fei Yang <fei.yang at intel.com>
>  >> Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti at linux.intel.com>
>  >
>  > [snip]
>  >
>  >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_ppgtt.c 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_ppgtt.c
>  >> index bb6998d67133..f2334a713c4e 100644
>  >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_ppgtt.c
>  >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/gen8_ppgtt.c
>  >> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static u64 gen8_pte_encode(dma_addr_t addr,
>  >>   }
>  >
>  >^^^
>  >
>  > How come there are no changes to gen8_pte_encode?
> 
> For legacy platforms cache_level is equal to pat_index, so I was thinking
> more about reducing number of lines changed.
> 
>  >vvv
>  >
>  >>
>  >>   static u64 mtl_pte_encode(dma_addr_t addr,
>  >> -                       enum i915_cache_level level,
>  >> +                       unsigned int pat_index,
>  >>                          u32 flags)
>  >
>  > Prototype and implementation changed here for mtl_pte_encode.
>  >
>  > And we have:
>  >
>  >        if (GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(gt->i915) >= IP_VER(12, 70))
>  >                ppgtt->vm.pte_encode = mtl_pte_encode;
>  >        else
>  >                ppgtt->vm.pte_encode = gen8_pte_encode;
>  >
>  > So should be same prototype. And:
>  >
>  >         u64 (*pte_encode)(dma_addr_t addr,
>  >-                         enum i915_cache_level level,
>  >+                         unsigned int pat_index,
>  >                           u32 flags); /* Create a valid PTE */
>  >
>  > Patch relies on the compiler considering enum equal to unsigned int?
> 
> yes, caller is passing in unsigned int and gets used as enum.
> 
>  > But the implementation of gen8_pte_encode and most ggtt counterparts is
>  > looking at the passed in pat index and thinks it is cache level.
>  >
>  > How is that supposed to work?! Or I am blind and am missing something?
> 
> For legacy platforms translation through LEGACY_CACHELEVEL would not
> change the value of cache_level. The cache_level and pat_index are basically
> the same for these platforms.

Oh that is nasty little trick! And I did not spot it being described anywhere in the commit message or code comments.

So you are saying for legacy cache_level equals pat_index for what caching behaviour is concerned. Ie:

+#define LEGACY_CACHELEVEL \
+	.cachelevel_to_pat = { \
+		[I915_CACHE_NONE]   = 0, \
+		[I915_CACHE_LLC]    = 1, \
+		[I915_CACHE_L3_LLC] = 2, \
+		[I915_CACHE_WT]     = 3, \
+	}

And because:

enum i915_cache_level {
	I915_CACHE_NONE = 0,
	I915_CACHE_LLC,
	I915_CACHE_L3_LLC,
	I915_CACHE_WT,
};

This indeed ends up a 1:1 reversible mapping.

But it is hidden and fragile. What prevents someone from changing the enum i915_cache_level? There is no explicit linkage with hardware PAT values anywhere. Or at least I don't see it.

I would say all pte_encode signatures have to be changed to pat index.

Which means all pte encode implementations have to understand what pat indices mean.

Which brings us back to that idea of a 2nd table, I paraphrase:

.legacy_pat_to_cache = {
  	[0] = I915_PAT_UC,
	[1] = I915_PAT_WB,
	[2] = I915_PAT_WB | I915_PAT_LLC /* not sure on this one */
	[3] = I915_PAT_WT,
};

Pat_encode implementations then instead:

	switch (level) {
	case I915_CACHE_NONE:
		pte |= PPAT_UNCACHED;
	...

Do:

	if (i915->pat_to_cache_flags[pat_index] & I915_PAT_UC)
		pte |= PPAT_UNCACHED;
	else if
	...


But it would require i915 to be passed in which is admittedly a noisy diff. Hm.. benefit of hardware agnostic enum i915_cache_level.. Maybe convert pat_index to I915_PAT_.. flags in the callers? Like this:

gen8_ppgtt_insert_pte(...)
...
	const u32 pat_flags = i915->pat_to_cache_flags[pat_index];
	const gen8_pte_t pte_encode = ppgtt->vm.pte_encode(0, pat_flags, flags);

Etc. That would be smaller churn on the pte_encode signature.

Maybe helper for i915->pat_to_cache_flags lookup so it can check the array bounds?

If this all sounds too much to you maybe we can do it as a followup.

Or perhaps it is actually pointing towards that obj->pat_index is not the most elegant choice to be used as a single point of truth.. perhaps obj->cache_flags would be better. It would be set at same entry points and it would be hw agnostic so could end up more elegant in the driver.

But then I think we need at minimum something like the below in this patch, somewhere:

/*
  * On pre-Gen12 platforms enum i915_cache_level happens to align
  * with caching modes as specified in hardware PAT indices. Our
  * implementation relies on that due tricks played (explain the
  * tricks) in the pte_encode vfuncs.
  * Ensure this trick keeps working until the driver can be fully
  * refactored to support pat indices better.
  */
BUILD_BUG_ON(I915_CACHE_NONE != 0);
... etc for all enums ...

if (gen < 12) {
	GEM_WARN_ON(i915_gem_get_pat_index(i915, I915_CACHE_NONE) != 0);
	... etc for all enums ...
}

> It is broken for gen12 here. I was asked to separate the gen12_pte_encode
> change to another patch in the series, but that breaks bisect. Should I
> squash 2/5 and 3/5?

This patch breaks gen12? Yes that should definitely be avoided.

Regards,

Tvrtko