On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:34:41PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:41:05PM +0530, akash.g...@intel.com wrote:
> > @@ -3982,7 +3983,21 @@ i915_gem_object_set_to_cpu_domain(struct
> > drm_i915_gem_object *obj, bool write)
> >
> > /* Flush the CPU cache if it's still invalid. */
> > if ((obj->base.read_domains & I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU) == 0) {
> > - i915_gem_clflush_object(obj, false);
> > + /* If an object is moved out of the CPU domain following a
> > + * CPU write and before a GPU or GTT write, we will clflush
> > + * it out of the CPU cache, and mark the cache as clean.
> > + * After clflushing we know that this object cannot be in the
> > + * CPU cache, nor can it be speculatively loaded into the CPU
> > + * cache as our objects are page-aligned (& speculation cannot
> > + * cross page boundaries). Whilst this flag is set, we know
> > + * that any future access to the object's pages will miss the
> > + * stale cache and have to be serviced from main memory, i.e.
> > + * we do not need another clflush to invalidate the CPU cache
> > + * in preparing to read from the object.
> > + */
> > + if (!obj->cache_clean)
> > + i915_gem_clflush_object(obj, false);
> > + obj->cache_clean = false;
>
> Having the comment here talk about moving stuff out of the cpu domain
> made me think there's a bug here (false vs. true). But actually this
> code moves it into the cpu domain so it's actually fine, I wonder if
> there's a better place for the comment (eg. where we do set
> cache_clean=true)?
I thought it made more sense here because this is where we playing the
trick to avoid the clflush.
Hmm, would s/If an object/When the object/ and
s/cache_clean/cache_flushed/ suffice?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
