[Intel-xe] [PATCH 00/22] TLB Invalidation
Niranjana Vishwanathapura
niranjana.vishwanathapura at intel.com
Thu Feb 9 04:54:04 UTC 2023
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 12:27:01PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 02:39:33PM -0800, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 03:23:47PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> > Let's just confirm the reviews on this patch and get them
>> > merged to drm-xe-next.
>> >
>> > Matthew Brost (22):
>> > drm/xe: Don't process TLB invalidation done in CT fast-path
>> > drm/xe: Break of TLB invalidation into its own file
>> > drm/xe: Move TLB invalidation variable to own sub-structure in GT
>> > drm/xe: Add TLB invalidation fence
>> > drm/xe: Invalidate TLB after unbind is complete
>> > drm/xe: Kernel doc GT TLB invalidations
>> > drm/xe: Add TLB invalidation fence ftrace
>> > drm/xe: Fix build for CONFIG_DRM_XE_DEBUG
>> > drm/xe: Add TDR for invalidation fence timeout cleanup
>> > drm/xe: Only set VM->asid for platforms that support a ASID
>> > drm/xe: Delete debugfs entry to issue TLB invalidation
>> > drm/xe: Add has_range_tlb_invalidation device attribute
>> > drm/xe: Add range based TLB invalidations
>> > drm/xe: Propagate error from bind operations to async fence
>> > drm/xe: Use GuC to do GGTT invalidations for the GuC firmware
>> > drm/xe: Coalesce GGTT invalidations
>> > drm/xe: Lock GGTT on when restoring kernel BOs
>> > drm/xe: Propagate VM unbind error to invalidation fence
>> > drm/xe: Signal invalidation fence immediately if CT send fails
>> > drm/xe: Add has_asid to device info
>> > drm/xe: Add TLB invalidation fence after rebinds issued from execs
>> > drm/xe: Drop TLB invalidation from ring operations
>> >
>>
>> Looks good to me.
>> Some minor comments on patch ordering.
>> Patch #8 can be merged with #10
>
>did you mean squashed together?
>but why 8 and 10? 8 is a build fix, so I'd assume the issue
>happened in a previous patch, not in patch 10.
>
>08 - drm/xe: Fix build for CONFIG_DRM_XE_DEBUG
>10 - drm/xe: Only set VM->asid for platforms that support a ASID
>
Sorry, I meant #8 and #11. Most of the change in #8 is removed by
patch #11. So, #8 can be squashed with #11.
>> Patch #10 can be simplified if we move #20 before patch #10
>
>indeed, but at this point I prefer to not touch them...
>
>> Patch #17 should probably put ahead of #16
>
>maybe a squash? but I will probably just leave it as is...
>
Ok,
Niranjana
>>
>> In any case,
>> Reviewed-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura at intel.com>
>
>Thanks you so much
>
>>
>>
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Makefile | 1 +
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo_evict.c | 5 +-
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c | 14 +
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h | 4 +
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c | 23 +-
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt_types.h | 2 +
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c | 19 +
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.h | 1 +
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_debugfs.c | 21 --
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_pagefault.c | 104 +-----
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_pagefault.h | 3 -
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c | 342 ++++++++++++++++++
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.h | 26 ++
>> > .../gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_types.h | 28 ++
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_types.h | 41 ++-
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc.c | 2 +
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c | 10 +-
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_types.h | 2 +
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.c | 4 +-
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci.c | 7 +
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pt.c | 130 +++++++
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ring_ops.c | 40 +-
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_trace.h | 55 +++
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc.c | 9 +-
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_uc.h | 1 +
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c | 42 ++-
>> > 26 files changed, 736 insertions(+), 200 deletions(-)
>> > create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
>> > create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.h
>> > create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_types.h
>> >
>> > --
>> > 2.39.1
>> >
More information about the Intel-xe
mailing list