From: "Summers, Stuart" <stuart.summers@intel.com>
To: "intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Ghimiray, Himal Prasad" <himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com>
Cc: "Brost, Matthew" <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
"Upadhyay, Tejas" <tejas.upadhyay@intel.com>,
"Yadav, Arvind" <arvind.yadav@intel.com>,
"thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com"
<thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 13/15] drm/xe/lrc: Pass exec_queue to xe_lrc_create for access counter params
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 20:50:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <80d9d30ec9a3554498d8a76c894ceb782dffa970.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260318074456.2839499-14-himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com>
On Wed, 2026-03-18 at 13:14 +0530, Himal Prasad Ghimiray wrote:
> Update xe_lrc_create() and xe_lrc_init() to receive exec_queue
> pointer,
> enabling access to q->acc.{trigger, notify, granularity} during LRC
> initialization. Program CTX_ACC_CTR_THOLD and CTX_ASID registers with
> access counter values.
>
> Bspec: 59264, 59265
> Signed-off-by: Himal Prasad Ghimiray
> <himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_lrc_layout.h | 10 +++++++
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c | 2 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_execlist.c | 2 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> --
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.h | 5 ++--
> 5 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_lrc_layout.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_lrc_layout.h
> index b5eff383902c..35ee070059dd 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_lrc_layout.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_lrc_layout.h
> @@ -40,4 +40,14 @@
> #define INDIRECT_CTX_RING_START_UDW (0x08 + 1)
> #define INDIRECT_CTX_RING_CTL (0x0a + 1)
>
> +/* Fields for CTX_ACC_CTR_THOLD */
> +#define ACC_TRIGGER_MASK REG_GENMASK(15, 0)
> +#define
> ACC_TRIGGER_VAL(x) REG_FIELD_PREP(ACC_TRIGGER_MASK, x)
> +#define ACC_NOTIFY_MASK REG_GENMASK(31, 16)
> +#define
> ACC_NOTIFY_VAL(x) REG_FIELD_PREP(ACC_NOTIFY_MASK, x)
> +
> +/* Fields for CTX_ASID */
> +#define ACC_GRANULARITY_MASK REG_GENMASK(22, 20)
> +#define ACC_GRANULARITY_VAL(x)
> REG_FIELD_PREP(ACC_GRANULARITY_MASK, x)
> +
> #endif
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c
> index 815e82011c6d..05c808b330b4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c
> @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ static int __xe_exec_queue_init(struct
> xe_exec_queue *q, u32 exec_queue_flags)
>
> marker = xe_gt_sriov_vf_wait_valid_ggtt(q-
> >gt);
>
> - lrc = xe_lrc_create(q->hwe, q->vm, q-
> >replay_state,
> + lrc = xe_lrc_create(q, q->hwe, q->vm,
It looks like the majority of cases here are passing hwe in from the q
directly and not something separate - the one case I see where that
isn't the case is in the execlist code...
Can we drop the q->hwe parameter and just get that from the q itself in
xe_lrc_create() now?
> q->replay_state,
> xe_lrc_ring_size(), q-
> >msix_vec, flags);
> if (IS_ERR(lrc)) {
> err = PTR_ERR(lrc);
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_execlist.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_execlist.c
> index 7e8a3a7db741..05de991ae90a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_execlist.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_execlist.c
> @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ struct xe_execlist_port
> *xe_execlist_port_create(struct xe_device *xe,
>
> port->hwe = hwe;
>
> - port->lrc = xe_lrc_create(hwe, NULL, NULL, SZ_16K,
> XE_IRQ_DEFAULT_MSIX, 0);
> + port->lrc = xe_lrc_create(NULL, hwe, NULL, NULL, SZ_16K,
> XE_IRQ_DEFAULT_MSIX, 0);
> if (IS_ERR(port->lrc)) {
> err = PTR_ERR(port->lrc);
> goto err;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.c
> index 35b365ac55e5..9cb91ce63d59 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.c
> @@ -1439,8 +1439,10 @@ void xe_lrc_set_multi_queue_priority(struct
> xe_lrc *lrc, enum xe_multi_queue_pri
> lrc->desc |= FIELD_PREP(LRC_PRIORITY,
> xe_multi_queue_prio_to_lrc(lrc, priority));
> }
>
> -static int xe_lrc_ctx_init(struct xe_lrc *lrc, struct xe_hw_engine
> *hwe, struct xe_vm *vm,
> - void *replay_state, u16 msix_vec, u32
> init_flags)
> +static int xe_lrc_ctx_init(struct xe_lrc *lrc, struct xe_exec_queue
> *q,
> + struct xe_hw_engine *hwe, struct xe_vm
> *vm,
> + void *replay_state,
> + u16 msix_vec, u32 init_flags)
> {
> struct xe_gt *gt = hwe->gt;
> struct xe_tile *tile = gt_to_tile(gt);
> @@ -1527,8 +1529,20 @@ static int xe_lrc_ctx_init(struct xe_lrc *lrc,
> struct xe_hw_engine *hwe, struct
> if (lrc_to_xe(lrc)->info.has_64bit_timestamp)
> xe_lrc_write_ctx_reg(lrc, CTX_TIMESTAMP_UDW, 0);
>
> - if (xe->info.has_asid && vm)
> - xe_lrc_write_ctx_reg(lrc, CTX_ASID, vm->usm.asid);
> + if (xe->info.has_asid && vm) {
> + u32 asid;
> +
> + if (q)
> + asid = vm->usm.asid | ACC_GRANULARITY_VAL(q-
> >acc.granularity);
> + else
> + asid = vm->usm.asid;
Seems like something we could inline here like:
asid = vm->usm.asid | q ? ACC_GRANULARITY_VAL(q->acc.granularity) : 0;
But maybe it's just as clear the way you have it...
Thanks,
Stuart
> + xe_lrc_write_ctx_reg(lrc, CTX_ASID, asid);
> + }
> +
> + if (q && xe->info.has_access_counter && vm)
> + xe_lrc_write_ctx_reg(lrc, CTX_ACC_CTR_THOLD,
> + ACC_NOTIFY_VAL(q->acc.notify) |
> + ACC_TRIGGER_VAL(q-
> >acc.trigger));
>
> lrc->desc = LRC_VALID;
> lrc->desc |= FIELD_PREP(LRC_ADDRESSING_MODE,
> LRC_LEGACY_64B_CONTEXT);
> @@ -1570,7 +1584,8 @@ static int xe_lrc_ctx_init(struct xe_lrc *lrc,
> struct xe_hw_engine *hwe, struct
> return err;
> }
>
> -static int xe_lrc_init(struct xe_lrc *lrc, struct xe_hw_engine *hwe,
> struct xe_vm *vm,
> +static int xe_lrc_init(struct xe_lrc *lrc, struct xe_exec_queue *q,
> + struct xe_hw_engine *hwe, struct xe_vm *vm,
> void *replay_state, u32 ring_size, u16
> msix_vec, u32 init_flags)
> {
> struct xe_gt *gt = hwe->gt;
> @@ -1626,7 +1641,7 @@ static int xe_lrc_init(struct xe_lrc *lrc,
> struct xe_hw_engine *hwe, struct xe_v
> xe_hw_fence_ctx_init(&lrc->fence_ctx, hwe->gt,
> hwe->fence_irq, hwe->name);
>
> - err = xe_lrc_ctx_init(lrc, hwe, vm, replay_state, msix_vec,
> init_flags);
> + err = xe_lrc_ctx_init(lrc, q, hwe, vm, replay_state,
> msix_vec, init_flags);
> if (err)
> goto err_lrc_finish;
>
> @@ -1642,6 +1657,7 @@ static int xe_lrc_init(struct xe_lrc *lrc,
> struct xe_hw_engine *hwe, struct xe_v
>
> /**
> * xe_lrc_create - Create a LRC
> + * @q: Exec queue (can be NULL for kernel queues)
> * @hwe: Hardware Engine
> * @vm: The VM (address space)
> * @replay_state: GPU hang replay state
> @@ -1654,8 +1670,9 @@ static int xe_lrc_init(struct xe_lrc *lrc,
> struct xe_hw_engine *hwe, struct xe_v
> * Return pointer to created LRC upon success and an error pointer
> * upon failure.
> */
> -struct xe_lrc *xe_lrc_create(struct xe_hw_engine *hwe, struct xe_vm
> *vm,
> - void *replay_state, u32 ring_size, u16
> msix_vec, u32 flags)
> +struct xe_lrc *xe_lrc_create(struct xe_exec_queue *q, struct
> xe_hw_engine *hwe,
> + struct xe_vm *vm, void *replay_state,
> u32 ring_size,
> + u16 msix_vec, u32 flags)
> {
> struct xe_lrc *lrc;
> int err;
> @@ -1664,7 +1681,7 @@ struct xe_lrc *xe_lrc_create(struct
> xe_hw_engine *hwe, struct xe_vm *vm,
> if (!lrc)
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>
> - err = xe_lrc_init(lrc, hwe, vm, replay_state, ring_size,
> msix_vec, flags);
> + err = xe_lrc_init(lrc, q, hwe, vm, replay_state, ring_size,
> msix_vec, flags);
> if (err) {
> kfree(lrc);
> return ERR_PTR(err);
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.h
> index e7c975f9e2d9..b101aabe3d0d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.h
> @@ -51,8 +51,9 @@ struct xe_lrc_snapshot {
> #define XE_LRC_CREATE_USER_CTX BIT(2)
> #define XE_LRC_DISABLE_STATE_CACHE_PERF_FIX BIT(3)
>
> -struct xe_lrc *xe_lrc_create(struct xe_hw_engine *hwe, struct xe_vm
> *vm,
> - void *replay_state, u32 ring_size, u16
> msix_vec, u32 flags);
> +struct xe_lrc *xe_lrc_create(struct xe_exec_queue *q, struct
> xe_hw_engine *hwe,
> + struct xe_vm *vm, void *replay_state,
> + u32 ring_size, u16 msix_vec, u32 flags);
> void xe_lrc_destroy(struct kref *ref);
>
> /**
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-22 20:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-18 7:44 [RFC 00/15] drm/xe: Access counter consumer layer Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-03-18 7:34 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for " Patchwork
2026-03-18 7:35 ` ✗ CI.KUnit: failure " Patchwork
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 01/15] drm/xe: Add xe_usm_queue generic USM circular buffer Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-04-01 21:28 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-06 4:46 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 02/15] drm/xe/pagefault: Use xe_usm_queue helpers Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 03/15] drm/xe: Stub out new access_counter layer Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-04-02 21:46 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-06 5:28 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2026-04-14 20:06 ` Summers, Stuart
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 04/15] drm/xe: Implement xe_access_counter_init Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 05/15] drm/xe: Implement xe_access_counter_handler Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-04-03 2:06 ` Matthew Brost
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 06/15] drm/xe: Extract xe_vma_lock_and_validate helper Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-04-01 22:03 ` Matthew Brost
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 07/15] drm/xe: Move ASID to FAULT VM lookup to xe_device Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-04-02 21:50 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-07 6:41 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 08/15] drm/xe: Implement xe_access_counter_queue_work Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-04-01 21:10 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-01 22:01 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-01 22:11 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-02 22:06 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-22 20:35 ` Summers, Stuart
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 09/15] drm/xe/trace: Add xe_vma_acc trace event for access counter notifications Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-04-03 1:01 ` Matthew Brost
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 10/15] drm/xe/svm: Handle svm ranges on access ctr trigger Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-04-03 0:25 ` Matthew Brost
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 11/15] drm/xe: Add xe_guc_access_counter layer Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-04-02 21:27 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-14 21:24 ` Summers, Stuart
2026-04-22 20:38 ` Summers, Stuart
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 12/15] drm/xe/uapi: Add access counter parameter extension for exec queue Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-03-24 14:25 ` Francois Dugast
2026-04-01 14:46 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-01 16:36 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 13/15] drm/xe/lrc: Pass exec_queue to xe_lrc_create for access counter params Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-04-22 20:50 ` Summers, Stuart [this message]
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 14/15] drm/xe/vm: Add xe_vma_supports_access_ctr() helper Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-04-22 20:54 ` Summers, Stuart
2026-03-18 7:44 ` [RFC 15/15] drm/xe/pt: Set NC PTE bit for VMAs ineligible for access counting Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2026-04-03 0:09 ` Matthew Brost
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=80d9d30ec9a3554498d8a76c894ceb782dffa970.camel@intel.com \
--to=stuart.summers@intel.com \
--cc=arvind.yadav@intel.com \
--cc=himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=tejas.upadhyay@intel.com \
--cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox