[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] drm/ttm: force cached mappings for system RAM on ARM
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 07:07:54PM +0000, Koenig, Christian wrote:
> Am 14.01.19 um 18:32 schrieb Ard Biesheuvel:
> - The reason remapping the CPU side as cacheable does work (which I
> did test) is because the GPU's uncacheable accesses (which I assume
> are made using the NoSnoop PCIe transaction attribute) are actually
> emitted as cacheable in some cases.
> . On my AMD Seattle, with or without SMMU (which is stage 2 only), I
> must use cacheable accesses from the CPU side or things are broken.
> This might be a h/w flaw, though.
> . On systems with stage 1+2 SMMUs, the driver uses stage 1
> translations which always override the memory attributes to cacheable
> for DMA coherent devices. This is what is affecting the Cavium
> ThunderX2 (although it appears the attributes emitted by the RC may be
> incorrect as well.)
> The latter issue is a shortcoming in the SMMU driver that we have to
> fix, i.e., it should take care not to modify the incoming attributes
> of DMA coherent PCIe devices for NoSnoop to be able to work.
> So in summary, the mismatch appears to be between the CPU accessing
> the vmap region with non-cacheable attributes and the GPU accessing
> the same memory with cacheable attributes, resulting in a loss of
> coherency and lots of visible corruption.
> Actually it is the other way around. The CPU thinks some data is in the
> cache and the GPU only updates the system memory version because the
> snoop flag is not set.
> That doesn't seem to be what is happening. As far as we can tell from
> our experiments, all inbound transactions are always cacheable, and so
> the only way to make things work is to ensure that the CPU uses the
> same attributes.
> Ok that doesn't make any sense. If inbound transactions are cacheable or not is
> irrelevant when the CPU always uses uncached accesses.
> See on the PCIe side you have the snoop bit in the read/write transactions
> which tells the root hub if the device wants to snoop caches or not.
> When the CPU accesses some memory as cached then devices need to snoop the
> cache for coherent accesses.
> When the CPU accesses some memory as uncached then devices can disable snooping
> to improve performance, but when they don't do this it is mandated by the spec
> that this still works.

Which spec? The Arm architecture (and others including Power afaiu) doesn't
guarantee coherency when memory is accessed using mismatched cacheability


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-14 20:15    [W:0.090 / U:14.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site