TTM placement & caching issue/questions

[Thomas Hellstrom]

On 09/04/2014 11:43 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 11:34 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 09:44:04AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> Last time I tested, (and it seems like Michel is on the same track),
>>> writing with the CPU to write-combined memory was substantially faster
>>> than writing to cached memory, with the additional side-effect that CPU
>>> caches are left unpolluted.
>>>
>>> Moreover (although only tested on Intel's embedded chipsets), texturing
>>> from cpu-cache-coherent PCI memory was a real GPU performance hog
>>> compared to texturing from non-snooped memory. Hence, whenever a buffer
>>> could be classified as GPU-read-only (or almost at least), it should be
>>> placed in write-combined memory.
>> Just a quick comment since this explicitly referes to intel chips: On
>> desktop/laptop chips with the big shared l3/l4 caches it's the other way
>> round. Cached uploads are substantially faster than wc and not using
>> coherent access is a severe perf hit for texturing. I guess the hw guys
>> worked really hard to hide the snooping costs so that the gpu can benefit
>> from the massive bandwidth these caches can provide.
> This is similar to modern POWER chips as well. We have pretty big L3's
> (though not technically shared they are in a separate quadrant and we
> have a shared L4 in the memory buffer) and our fabric is generally
> optimized for cachable/coherent access performance. In fact, we only
> have so many credits for NC accesses on the bus...
>

Thanks both of you for the update. I haven't dealt with real hardware
for a while..

/Thomas