[PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-08 Thread Matthew Brost
CTB writes are now in the path of command submission and should be optimized for performance. Rather than reading CTB descriptor values (e.g. head, tail) which could result in accesses across the PCIe bus, store shadow local copies and only read/write the descriptor values when absolutely

Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-07 Thread Matthew Brost
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 01:21:35PM -0700, John Harrison wrote: > On 7/7/2021 11:56, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > Ok, I sent it but I looks like patchworks didn't like it. Anyways we > > should be able to review that patch. > > > > Matt > Maybe because it came out as 6/56 instead of 6/7? Also, not

Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-07 Thread John Harrison
On 7/7/2021 11:56, Matthew Brost wrote: Ok, I sent it but I looks like patchworks didn't like it. Anyways we should be able to review that patch. Matt Maybe because it came out as 6/56 instead of 6/7? Also, not sure if it needs to be in reply to 0/7 or 6/7? John.

Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-07 Thread Matthew Brost
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:19:01AM -0700, John Harrison wrote: > On 7/7/2021 10:50, Matthew Brost wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 03:51:00PM -0700, John Harrison wrote: > > > On 7/6/2021 15:20, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > > CTB writes are now in the path of command submission and should be > > >

Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-07 Thread John Harrison
On 7/7/2021 10:50, Matthew Brost wrote: On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 03:51:00PM -0700, John Harrison wrote: On 7/6/2021 15:20, Matthew Brost wrote: CTB writes are now in the path of command submission and should be optimized for performance. Rather than reading CTB descriptor values (e.g. head,

Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-07 Thread Matthew Brost
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 03:51:00PM -0700, John Harrison wrote: > On 7/6/2021 15:20, Matthew Brost wrote: > > CTB writes are now in the path of command submission and should be > > optimized for performance. Rather than reading CTB descriptor values > > (e.g. head, tail) which could result in

Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-06 Thread John Harrison
On 7/6/2021 15:20, Matthew Brost wrote: CTB writes are now in the path of command submission and should be optimized for performance. Rather than reading CTB descriptor values (e.g. head, tail) which could result in accesses across the PCIe bus, store shadow local copies and only read/write the

Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-06 Thread John Harrison
On 7/6/2021 12:33, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: On 06.07.2021 21:19, John Harrison wrote: On 7/6/2021 12:12, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: On 06.07.2021 21:00, John Harrison wrote: On 7/1/2021 10:15, Matthew Brost wrote: CTB writes are now in the path of command submission and should be optimized for

[PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-06 Thread Matthew Brost
CTB writes are now in the path of command submission and should be optimized for performance. Rather than reading CTB descriptor values (e.g. head, tail) which could result in accesses across the PCIe bus, store shadow local copies and only read/write the descriptor values when absolutely

Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-06 Thread Matthew Brost
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 09:33:23PM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: > > > On 06.07.2021 21:19, John Harrison wrote: > > On 7/6/2021 12:12, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: > >> On 06.07.2021 21:00, John Harrison wrote: > >>> On 7/1/2021 10:15, Matthew Brost wrote: > CTB writes are now in the path of

Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-06 Thread Michal Wajdeczko
On 06.07.2021 21:19, John Harrison wrote: > On 7/6/2021 12:12, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: >> On 06.07.2021 21:00, John Harrison wrote: >>> On 7/1/2021 10:15, Matthew Brost wrote: CTB writes are now in the path of command submission and should be optimized for performance. Rather than

Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-06 Thread John Harrison
On 7/6/2021 12:12, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: On 06.07.2021 21:00, John Harrison wrote: On 7/1/2021 10:15, Matthew Brost wrote: CTB writes are now in the path of command submission and should be optimized for performance. Rather than reading CTB descriptor values (e.g. head, tail) which could

Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-06 Thread Michal Wajdeczko
On 06.07.2021 21:00, John Harrison wrote: > On 7/1/2021 10:15, Matthew Brost wrote: >> CTB writes are now in the path of command submission and should be >> optimized for performance. Rather than reading CTB descriptor values >> (e.g. head, tail) which could result in accesses across the PCIe

Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-06 Thread John Harrison
On 7/1/2021 10:15, Matthew Brost wrote: CTB writes are now in the path of command submission and should be optimized for performance. Rather than reading CTB descriptor values (e.g. head, tail) which could result in accesses across the PCIe bus, store shadow local copies and only read/write the

[PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-07-01 Thread Matthew Brost
CTB writes are now in the path of command submission and should be optimized for performance. Rather than reading CTB descriptor values (e.g. head, tail) which could result in accesses across the PCIe bus, store shadow local copies and only read/write the descriptor values when absolutely

[PATCH 6/7] drm/i915/guc: Optimize CTB writes and reads

2021-06-27 Thread Matthew Brost
CTB writes are now in the path of command submission and should be optimized for performance. Rather than reading CTB descriptor values (e.g. head, tail) which could result in accesses across the PCIe bus, store shadow local copies and only read/write the descriptor values when absolutely