blob: 055b04cea43506237bc9236a11835762310f9d8f [file] [log] [blame]
From 7809753376f1dbacf3b24318baf0a90cb40908a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ben Widawsky <>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 23:47:29 -0700
Subject: drm/i915/hsw: Change default LLC age to 3
The default LLC age was changed:
commit 0d8ff15e9a15f2b393e53337a107b7a1e5919b6d
Author: Ben Widawsky <>
Date: Thu Jul 4 11:02:03 2013 -0700
drm/i915/hsw: Set correct Haswell PTE encodings.
On the surface it would seem setting a default age wouldn't matter
because all GEM BOs are aged similarly, so the order in which objects
are evicted would not be subject to aging. The current working theory as
to why this caused a regression though is that LLC is a bit special in
that it is shared with the CPU. Presumably (not verified) the CPU
fetches cachelines with age 3, and therefore recently cached GPU objects
would be evicted before similar CPU object first when the LLC is full.
It stands to reason therefore that this would negatively impact CPU
bound benchmarks - but those seem to be low on the priority list.
eLLC OTOH does not have this same property as LLC. It should be used
entirely for the GPU, and so the age really shouldn't matter.
Furthermore, we have no evidence to suggest one is better than another
on eLLC. Since we've never properly supported eLLC before no, there
should be no regression. If the GPU client really wants "younger"
objects, they should use MOCS.
v2: Drop the extra #define (Chad)
v3: Actually git add
v4: Pimped commit message
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <>
Reviewed-by: Chad Versace <>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <>
(cherry picked from commit 87a6b688ccc78b2c54bee56879c6d195d2457ebe)
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <>
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
index e7b420495516..3e7f1242af91 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
@@ -52,6 +52,7 @@
#define HSW_CACHEABILITY_CONTROL(bits) ((((bits) & 0x7) << 1) | \
(((bits) & 0x8) << (11 - 3)))
@@ -105,7 +106,7 @@ static gen6_gtt_pte_t hsw_pte_encode(dma_addr_t addr,
pte |= HSW_PTE_ADDR_ENCODE(addr);
if (level != I915_CACHE_NONE)
- pte |= HSW_WB_LLC_AGE0;
+ pte |= HSW_WB_LLC_AGE3;
return pte;