| Tiling |
| ====== |
| |
| The naive view of an image in memory is that the pixels are stored one after |
| another in memory usually in an X-major order. An image that is arranged in |
| this way is called "linear". Linear images, while easy to reason about, can |
| have very bad cache locality. Graphics operations tend to act on pixels that |
| are close together in 2-D euclidean space. If you move one pixel to the right |
| or left in a linear image, you only move a few bytes to one side or the other |
| in memory. However, if you move one pixel up or down you can end up kilobytes |
| or even megabytes away. |
| |
| Tiling (sometimes referred to as swizzling) is a method of re-arranging the |
| pixels of a surface so that pixels which are close in 2-D euclidean space are |
| likely to be close in memory. |
| |
| Basics |
| ------ |
| |
| The basic idea of a tiled image is that the image is first divided into |
| two-dimensional blocks or tiles. Each tile takes up a chunk of contiguous |
| memory and the tiles are arranged like pixels in linear surface. This is best |
| demonstrated with a specific example. Suppose we have a RGBA8888 X-tiled |
| surface on Intel graphics. Then the surface is divided into 128x8 pixel tiles |
| each of which is 4KB of memory. Within each tile, the pixels are laid out like |
| a 128x8 linear image. The tiles themselves are laid out row-major in memory |
| like giant pixels. This means that, as long as you don't leave your 128x8 |
| tile, you can move in both dimensions without leaving the same 4K page in |
| memory. |
| |
| .. image:: tiling-basic.svg |
| :alt: Example of an X-tiled image |
| |
| You can, however do even better than this. Suppose that same image is, |
| instead, Y-tiled. Then the surface is divided into 32x32 pixel tiles each of |
| which is 4KB of memory. Within a tile, each 64B cache line corresponds to 4x4 |
| pixel region of the image (you can think of it as a tile within a tile). This |
| means that very small deviations don't even leave the cache line. This added |
| bit of pixel shuffling is known to have a substantial performance impact in |
| most real-world applications. |
| |
| Intel graphics has several different tiling formats that we'll discuss in |
| detail in later sections. The most commonly used as of the writing of this |
| chapter is Y-tiling. In all tiling formats the basic principal is the same: |
| The image is divided into tiles of a particular size and, within those tiles, |
| the data is re-arranged (or swizzled) based on a particular pattern. A tile |
| size will always be specified in bytes by rows and the actual X-dimension of |
| the tile in elements depends on the size of the element in bytes. |
| |
| Bit-6 Swizzling |
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
| |
| On some older hardware, there is an additional address swizzle that is applied |
| on top of the tiling format. This has been removed starting with Broadwell |
| because, as it says in the Broadwell PRM Vol 5 "Tiling Algorithm" (p. 17): |
| |
| Address Swizzling for Tiled-Surfaces is no longer used because the main |
| memory controller has a more effective address swizzling algorithm. |
| |
| Whether or not swizzling is enabled depends on the memory configuration of the |
| system. Generally, systems with dual-channel RAM have swizzling enabled and |
| single-channel do not. Supposedly, this swizzling allows for better balancing |
| between the two memory channels and increases performance. Because it depends |
| on the memory configuration which may change from one boot to the next, it |
| requires a run-time check. |
| |
| The best documentation for bit-6 swizzling can be found in the Haswell PRM Vol. |
| 5 "Memory Views" in the section entitled "Address Swizzling for Tiled-Y |
| Surfaces". It exists on older platforms but the docs get progressively worse |
| the further you go back. |
| |
| ISL Representation |
| ------------------ |
| |
| The structure of any given tiling format is represented by ISL using the |
| :c:enum:`isl_tiling` enum and the :c:struct:`isl_tile_info` structure: |
| |
| .. c:autoenum:: isl_tiling |
| :file: src/intel/isl/isl.h |
| :members: |
| |
| .. c:autofunction:: isl_tiling_get_info |
| :file: src/intel/isl/isl.c |
| |
| .. c:autostruct:: isl_tile_info |
| :members: |
| |
| The ``isl_tile_info`` structure has two different sizes for a tile: a logical |
| size in surface elements and a physical size in bytes. In order to determine |
| the proper logical size, the bits-per-block of the underlying format has to be |
| passed into ``isl_tiling_get_info``. The proper way to compute the size of an |
| image in bytes given a width and height in elements is as follows: |
| |
| .. code-block:: c |
| |
| uint32_t width_tl = DIV_ROUND_UP(width_el * (format_bpb / tile_info.format_bpb), |
| tile_info.logical_extent_el.w); |
| uint32_t height_tl = DIV_ROUND_UP(height_el, tile_info.logical_extent_el.h); |
| uint32_t row_pitch = width_tl * tile_info.phys_extent_el.w; |
| uint32_t size = height_tl * tile_info.phys_extent_el.h * row_pitch; |
| |
| It is very important to note that there is no direct conversion between |
| :c:member:`isl_tile_info.logical_extent_el` and |
| :c:member:`isl_tile_info.phys_extent_B`. It is tempting to assume that the |
| logical and physical heights are the same and simply divide the width of |
| :c:member:`isl_tile_info.phys_extent_B` by the size of the format (which is |
| what the PRM does) to get :c:member:`isl_tile_info.logical_extent_el` but |
| this is not at all correct. Some tiling formats have logical and physical |
| heights that differ and so no such calculation will work in general. The |
| easiest case study for this is W-tiling. From the Sky Lake PRM Vol. 2d, |
| "RENDER_SURFACE_STATE" (p. 427): |
| |
| If the surface is a stencil buffer (and thus has Tile Mode set to |
| TILEMODE_WMAJOR), the pitch must be set to 2x the value computed based on |
| width, as the stencil buffer is stored with two rows interleaved. |
| |
| What does this mean? Why are we multiplying the pitch by two? What does it |
| mean that "the stencil buffer is stored with two rows interleaved"? The |
| explanation for all these questions is that a W-tile (which is only used for |
| stencil) has a logical size of 64el x 64el but a physical size of 128B |
| x 32rows. In memory, a W-tile has the same footprint as a Y-tile (128B |
| x 32rows) but every pair of rows in the stencil buffer is interleaved into |
| a single row of bytes yielding a two-dimensional area of 64el x 64el. You can |
| consider this as its own tiling format or as a modification of Y-tiling. The |
| interpretation in the PRMs vary by hardware generation; on Sandy Bridge they |
| simply said it was Y-tiled but by Sky Lake there is almost no mention of |
| Y-tiling in connection with stencil buffers and they are always W-tiled. This |
| mismatch between logical and physical tile sizes are also relevant for |
| hierarchical depth buffers as well as single-channel MCS and CCS buffers. |
| |
| X-tiling |
| -------- |
| |
| The simplest tiling format available on Intel graphics (which has been |
| available since gen4) is X-tiling. An X-tile is 512B x 8rows and, within the |
| tile, the data is arranged in an X-major linear fashion. You can also look at |
| X-tiling as being an 8x8 cache line grid where the cache lines are arranged |
| X-major as follows: |
| |
| ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= |
| `0x000` `0x040` `0x080` `0x0c0` `0x100` `0x140` `0x180` `0x1c0` |
| `0x200` `0x240` `0x280` `0x2c0` `0x300` `0x340` `0x380` `0x3c0` |
| `0x400` `0x440` `0x480` `0x4c0` `0x500` `0x540` `0x580` `0x5c0` |
| `0x600` `0x640` `0x680` `0x6c0` `0x700` `0x740` `0x780` `0x7c0` |
| `0x800` `0x840` `0x880` `0x8c0` `0x900` `0x940` `0x980` `0x9c0` |
| `0xa00` `0xa40` `0xa80` `0xac0` `0xb00` `0xb40` `0xb80` `0xbc0` |
| `0xc00` `0xc40` `0xc80` `0xcc0` `0xd00` `0xd40` `0xd80` `0xdc0` |
| `0xe00` `0xe40` `0xe80` `0xec0` `0xf00` `0xf40` `0xf80` `0xfc0` |
| ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= |
| |
| Each cache line represents a piece of a single row of pixels within the image. |
| The memory locations of two vertically adjacent pixels within the same X-tile |
| always differs by 512B or 8 cache lines. |
| |
| As mentioned above, X-tiling is slower than Y-tiling (though still faster than |
| linear). However, until Sky Lake, the display scan-out hardware could only do |
| X-tiling so we have historically used X-tiling for all window-system buffers |
| (because X or a Wayland compositor may want to put it in a plane). |
| |
| Bit-6 Swizzling |
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
| |
| When bit-6 swizzling is enabled, bits 9 and 10 are XORed in with bit 6 of the |
| tiled address: |
| |
| .. code-block:: c |
| |
| addr[6] ^= addr[9] ^ addr[10]; |
| |
| Y-tiling |
| -------- |
| |
| The Y-tiling format, also available since gen4, is substantially different from |
| X-tiling and performs much better in practice. Each Y-tile is an 8x8 grid of cache lines arranged Y-major as follows: |
| |
| ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= |
| `0x000` `0x200` `0x400` `0x600` `0x800` `0xa00` `0xc00` `0xe00` |
| `0x040` `0x240` `0x440` `0x640` `0x840` `0xa40` `0xc40` `0xe40` |
| `0x080` `0x280` `0x480` `0x680` `0x880` `0xa80` `0xc80` `0xe80` |
| `0x0c0` `0x2c0` `0x4c0` `0x6c0` `0x8c0` `0xac0` `0xcc0` `0xec0` |
| `0x100` `0x300` `0x500` `0x700` `0x900` `0xb00` `0xd00` `0xf00` |
| `0x140` `0x340` `0x540` `0x740` `0x940` `0xb40` `0xd40` `0xf40` |
| `0x180` `0x380` `0x580` `0x780` `0x980` `0xb80` `0xd80` `0xf80` |
| `0x1c0` `0x3c0` `0x5c0` `0x7c0` `0x9c0` `0xbc0` `0xdc0` `0xfc0` |
| ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= |
| |
| Each 64B cache line within the tile is laid out as 4 rows of 16B each: |
| |
| ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== |
| `0x00` `0x01` `0x02` `0x03` `0x04` `0x05` `0x06` `0x07` `0x08` `0x09` `0x0a` `0x0b` `0x0c` `0x0d` `0x0e` `0x0f` |
| `0x10` `0x11` `0x12` `0x13` `0x14` `0x15` `0x16` `0x17` `0x18` `0x19` `0x1a` `0x1b` `0x1c` `0x1d` `0x1e` `0x1f` |
| `0x20` `0x21` `0x22` `0x23` `0x24` `0x25` `0x26` `0x27` `0x28` `0x29` `0x2a` `0x2b` `0x2c` `0x2d` `0x2e` `0x2f` |
| `0x30` `0x31` `0x32` `0x33` `0x34` `0x35` `0x36` `0x37` `0x38` `0x39` `0x3a` `0x3b` `0x3c` `0x3d` `0x3e` `0x3f` |
| ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== |
| |
| Y-tiling is widely regarded as being substantially faster than X-tiling so it |
| is generally preferred. However, prior to Sky Lake, Y-tiling was not available |
| for scanout so X tiling was used for any sort of window-system buffers. |
| Starting with Sky Lake, we can scan out from Y-tiled buffers. |
| |
| Bit-6 Swizzling |
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
| |
| When bit-6 swizzling is enabled, bit 9 is XORed in with bit 6 of the tiled |
| address: |
| |
| .. code-block:: c |
| |
| addr[6] ^= addr[9]; |
| |
| W-tiling |
| -------- |
| |
| W-tiling is a new tiling format added on Sandy Bridge for use in stencil |
| buffers. W-tiling is similar to Y-tiling in that it's arranged as an 8x8 |
| Y-major grid of cache lines. The bytes within each cache line are arranged as |
| follows: |
| |
| ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== |
| `0x00` `0x01` `0x04` `0x05` `0x10` `0x11` `0x14` `0x15` |
| `0x02` `0x03` `0x06` `0x07` `0x12` `0x13` `0x16` `0x17` |
| `0x08` `0x09` `0x0c` `0x0d` `0x18` `0x19` `0x1c` `0x1d` |
| `0x0a` `0x0b` `0x0e` `0x0f` `0x1a` `0x1b` `0x1e` `0x1f` |
| `0x20` `0x21` `0x24` `0x25` `0x30` `0x31` `0x34` `0x35` |
| `0x22` `0x23` `0x26` `0x27` `0x32` `0x33` `0x36` `0x37` |
| `0x28` `0x29` `0x2c` `0x2d` `0x38` `0x39` `0x3c` `0x3d` |
| `0x2a` `0x2b` `0x2e` `0x2f` `0x3a` `0x3b` `0x3e` `0x3f` |
| ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== |
| |
| While W-tiling has been required for stencil all the way back to Sandy Bridge, |
| the docs are somewhat confused as to whether stencil buffers are W or Y-tiled. |
| This seems to stem from the fact that the hardware seems to implement W-tiling |
| as a sort of modified Y-tiling. One example of this is the somewhat odd |
| requirement that W-tiled buffers have their pitch multiplied by 2. From the |
| Sky Lake PRM Vol. 2d, "RENDER_SURFACE_STATE" (p. 427): |
| |
| If the surface is a stencil buffer (and thus has Tile Mode set to |
| TILEMODE_WMAJOR), the pitch must be set to 2x the value computed based on |
| width, as the stencil buffer is stored with two rows interleaved. |
| |
| The last phrase holds the key here: "the stencil buffer is stored with two rows |
| interleaved". More accurately, a W-tiled buffer can be viewed as a Y-tiled |
| buffer with each set of 4 W-tiled lines interleaved to form 2 Y-tiled lines. In |
| ISL, we represent a W-tile as a tiling with a logical dimension of 64el x 64el |
| but a physical size of 128B x 32rows. This cleanly takes care of the pitch |
| issue above and seems to nicely model the hardware. |
| |
| Tile4 |
| ----- |
| |
| The tile4 format, introduced on Xe-HP, is somewhat similar to Y but with more |
| internal shuffling. Each tile4 tile is an 8x8 grid of cache lines arranged |
| as follows: |
| |
| ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= |
| `0x000` `0x040` `0x080` `0x0a0` `0x200` `0x240` `0x280` `0x2a0` |
| `0x100` `0x140` `0x180` `0x1a0` `0x300` `0x340` `0x380` `0x3a0` |
| `0x400` `0x440` `0x480` `0x4a0` `0x600` `0x640` `0x680` `0x6a0` |
| `0x500` `0x540` `0x580` `0x5a0` `0x700` `0x740` `0x780` `0x7a0` |
| `0x800` `0x840` `0x880` `0x8a0` `0xa00` `0xa40` `0xa80` `0xaa0` |
| `0x900` `0x940` `0x980` `0x9a0` `0xb00` `0xb40` `0xb80` `0xba0` |
| `0xc00` `0xc40` `0xc80` `0xca0` `0xe00` `0xe40` `0xe80` `0xea0` |
| `0xd00` `0xd40` `0xd80` `0xda0` `0xf00` `0xf40` `0xf80` `0xfa0` |
| ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= |
| |
| Each 64B cache line within the tile is laid out the same way as for a Y-tile, |
| as 4 rows of 16B each: |
| |
| ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== |
| `0x00` `0x01` `0x02` `0x03` `0x04` `0x05` `0x06` `0x07` `0x08` `0x09` `0x0a` `0x0b` `0x0c` `0x0d` `0x0e` `0x0f` |
| `0x10` `0x11` `0x12` `0x13` `0x14` `0x15` `0x16` `0x17` `0x18` `0x19` `0x1a` `0x1b` `0x1c` `0x1d` `0x1e` `0x1f` |
| `0x20` `0x21` `0x22` `0x23` `0x24` `0x25` `0x26` `0x27` `0x28` `0x29` `0x2a` `0x2b` `0x2c` `0x2d` `0x2e` `0x2f` |
| `0x30` `0x31` `0x32` `0x33` `0x34` `0x35` `0x36` `0x37` `0x38` `0x39` `0x3a` `0x3b` `0x3c` `0x3d` `0x3e` `0x3f` |
| ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== |
| |
| Tiling as a bit pattern |
| ----------------------- |
| |
| There is one more important angle on tiling that should be discussed before we |
| finish. Every tiling can be described by three things: |
| |
| 1. A logical width and height in elements |
| 2. A physical width in bytes and height in rows |
| 3. A mapping from logical elements to physical bytes within the tile |
| |
| We have spent a good deal of time on the first two because this is what you |
| really need for doing surface layout calculations. However, there are cases in |
| which the map from logical to physical elements is critical. One example is |
| W-tiling where we have code to do W-tiled encoding and decoding in the shader |
| for doing stencil blits because the hardware does not allow us to render to |
| W-tiled surfaces. |
| |
| There are many ways to mathematically describe the mapping from logical |
| elements to physical bytes. In the PRMs they give a very complicated set of |
| formulas involving lots of multiplication, modulus, and sums that show you how |
| to compute the mapping. With a little creativity, you can easily reduce those |
| to a set of bit shifts and ORs. By far the simplest formulation, however, is |
| as a mapping from the bits of the texture coordinates to bits in the address. |
| Suppose that :math:`(u, v)` is location of a 1-byte element within a tile. If |
| you represent :math:`u` as :math:`u_n u_{n-1} \cdots u_2 u_1 u_0` where |
| :math:`u_0` is the LSB and :math:`u_n` is the MSB of :math:`u` and similarly |
| :math:`v = v_m v_{m-1} \cdots v_2 v_1 v_0`, then the bits of the address within |
| the tile are given by the table below: |
| |
| =========================================== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== |
| Tiling 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 |
| =========================================== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== |
| :c:enumerator:`isl_tiling.ISL_TILING_X` :math:`v_2` :math:`v_1` :math:`v_0` :math:`u_8` :math:`u_7` :math:`u_6` :math:`u_5` :math:`u_4` :math:`u_3` :math:`u_2` :math:`u_1` :math:`u_0` |
| :c:enumerator:`isl_tiling.ISL_TILING_Y0` :math:`u_6` :math:`u_5` :math:`u_4` :math:`v_4` :math:`v_3` :math:`v_2` :math:`v_1` :math:`v_0` :math:`u_3` :math:`u_2` :math:`u_1` :math:`u_0` |
| :c:enumerator:`isl_tiling.ISL_TILING_W` :math:`u_5` :math:`u_4` :math:`u_3` :math:`v_5` :math:`v_4` :math:`v_3` :math:`v_2` :math:`u_2` :math:`v_1` :math:`u_1` :math:`v_0` :math:`u_0` |
| :c:enumerator:`isl_tiling.ISL_TILING_4` :math:`v_4` :math:`v_3` :math:`u_6` :math:`v_2` :math:`u_5` :math:`u_4` :math:`v_1` :math:`v_0` :math:`u_3` :math:`u_2` :math:`u_1` :math:`u_0` |
| =========================================== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== |
| |
| Constructing the mapping this way makes a lot of sense when you think about |
| hardware. It may seem complex on paper but "simple" things such as addition |
| are relatively expensive in hardware while interleaving bits in a well-defined |
| pattern is practically free. For a format that has more than one byte per |
| element, you simply chop bits off the bottom of the pattern, hard-code them to |
| 0, and adjust bit indices as needed. For a 128-bit format, for instance, the |
| Y-tiled pattern becomes :math:`u_2 u_1 u_0 v_4 v_3 v_2 v_1 v_0`. The Sky Lake |
| PRM Vol. 5 in the section "2D Surfaces" contains an expanded version of the |
| above table (which we will not repeat here) that also includes the bit patterns |
| for the Ys and Yf tiling formats. |