On 2018-03-07 00:47:12, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 12:16:28 AM PST Jordan Justen wrote:
> > Suggested-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> >  src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.h |  8 ++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.c 
> > b/src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.c
> > index 1773009d33c..de018c6a692 100644
> > --- a/src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.c
> > +++ b/src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.c
> > @@ -284,11 +284,13 @@ static const struct gen_device_info 
> > gen_device_info_byt = {
> >     },
> >  };
> >  
> > -#define HSW_FEATURES             \
> > -   GEN7_FEATURES,                \
> > -   .is_haswell = true,           \
> > -   .supports_simd16_3src = true, \
> > -   .has_resource_streamer = true
> > +#define HSW_FEATURES                         \
> > +   GEN7_FEATURES,                            \
> > +   .is_haswell = true,                       \
> > +   .supports_simd16_3src = true,             \
> > +   .has_resource_streamer = true,            \
> > +   /* WaCSScratchSize:hsw */                 \
> > +   .cs_scratch_ids_per_subslice = 16 * 8
> >  
> >  static const struct gen_device_info gen_device_info_hsw_gt1 = {
> >     HSW_FEATURES, .gt = 1,
> > @@ -476,6 +478,7 @@ static const struct gen_device_info gen_device_info_chv 
> > = {
> >     .max_gs_threads = 80,
> >     .max_wm_threads = 128,
> >     .max_cs_threads = 6 * 7,
> > +   .cs_scratch_ids_per_subslice = 8 * 7,
> >     .urb = {
> >        .size = 192,
> >        .min_entries = {
> > diff --git a/src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.h 
> > b/src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.h
> > index b8044d00032..fa6b38f19ec 100644
> > --- a/src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.h
> > +++ b/src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.h
> > @@ -148,6 +148,14 @@ struct gen_device_info
> >      */
> >     unsigned max_cs_threads;
> >  
> > +   /**
> > +    * The range of scratch addresses may differ from the number of EUs
> > +    * available for compute programs. This requires allocating a larger
> > +    * scratch buffer. For affected hardware, this will be set. If this is 
> > not
> > +    * set, then max_cs_threads should be used instead.
> > +    */
> > +   unsigned cs_scratch_ids_per_subslice;
> > +
> >     struct {
> >        /**
> >         * Hardware default URB size.
> > 
> 
> This works, but it's not quite what I had in mind.  I was thinking you
> would add the new field, then add this hunk to gen_get_device_info():
> 
>    if (devinfo->is_haswell) {
>       /* WaCSScratchSize:hsw
>        *
>        * Haswell's scratch space address calculation appears to be sparse
>        * rather than tightly packed. The Thread ID has bits indicating
>        * which subslice, EU within a subslice, and thread within an EU it
>        * is. There's a maximum of two slices and two subslices, so these
>        * can be stored with a single bit. Even though there are only 10 EUs
>        * per subslice, this is stored in 4 bits, so there's an effective
>        * maximum value of 16 EUs. Similarly, although there are only 7
>        * threads per EU, this is stored in a 3 bit number, giving an
>        * effective maximum value of 8 threads per EU.
>        *
>        * This means that we need to use 16 * 8 instead of 10 * 7 for the
>        * number of threads per subslice.
>        */
>       devinfo->cs_scratch_ids_per_subslice = 16 * 8;
>    } else if (devinfo->is_cherryview) {
>       /* For Cherryview, it appears that the scratch addresses for the 6 EU
>        * devices may still generate compute scratch addresses covering the
>        * same range as 8 EU.
>        */
>       devinfo->cs_scratch_ids_per_subslice = 8 * 7;
>    } else {
>       devinfo->cs_scratch_ids_per_subslice = devinfo->max_cs_threads;
>    }

Originally, I had initialized them in the structures, and then had:

   if (devinfo->cs_scratch_ids_per_subslice == 0)
      devinfo->cs_scratch_ids_per_subslice = devinfo->max_cs_threads;

I used it directly, like you mentioned below.

Then I got concerned about how the kernel params might update
max_cs_threads, and should that cause cs_scratch_ids_per_subslice to
be updated? So, I changed it to be treated as an override.

But, I could change the code that updates max_cs_threads to also
update cs_scratch_ids_per_subslice.

> This way, the field is always meaningful, and so in patches 4-5 you can
> just use devinfo->cs_scratch_ids_per_subslice directly rather than doing
> 
>       const unsigned scratch_ids_per_subslice =
>          devinfo->cs_scratch_ids_per_subslice ?
>          devinfo->cs_scratch_ids_per_subslice : devinfo->max_cs_threads;
> 
> This also has the side effect of preserving the comment, which I think
> is valuable.

Well, I guess I thought that the comment might be a bit overwrought.
:) I mean, it's good to know that there's a special circumstance, but
maybe it's not too bad if you have to find the full details in the
commit history? :)

Nevertheless, I'll keep it.

-Jordan

> There's already some precedent for this, as
> gen_get_device_info() already whacks max_wm_threads precisely to deal
> with scratch IDs being somewhat sparse.
> 
> --Ken
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Reply via email to