From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Sk Anirban <sk.anirban@intel.com>
Cc: <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>, <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>,
<badal.nilawar@intel.com>, <riana.tauro@intel.com>,
<karthik.poosa@intel.com>, <raag.jadav@intel.com>,
<soham.purkait@intel.com>, <mallesh.koujalagi@intel.com>,
<vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] drm/xe/guc: Eliminate RPe caching for SLPC parameter handling
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 22:23:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aQ63pHic8tUHW13w@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251104195735.1606126-5-sk.anirban@intel.com>
On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 01:27:37AM +0530, Sk Anirban wrote:
> RPe is runtime-determined by PCODE and caching it caused stale values,
> leading to incorrect GuC SLPC parameter settings.
> Drop the cached rpe_freq field and query fresh values from hardware
> on each use to ensure GuC SLPC parameters reflect current RPe.
>
> v2: Remove cached RPe frequency field (Rodrigo)
> v3: Remove extra variable (Vinay)
> Modify function name (Vinay)
> v4: Maintain a separate function for PVC (Rodrigo)
> v5: Avoid RPn update while fetching RPe frequency (Rodrigo)
dang, now I regret on having asked that... I'm not trusting on the
CI results any longer.
Did you run this full xe_gt_freq tests in your machine?
I forgot the machine that made us to introduce this rpn hack...
>
> Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel/-/issues/5166
> Signed-off-by: Sk Anirban <sk.anirban@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc.c | 68 ++++++++++++++--------------
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc_types.h | 2 -
> 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc.c
> index ff22235857f8..efa9318c4587 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc.c
> @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ static int pc_set_min_freq(struct xe_guc_pc *pc, u32 freq)
> * Our goal is to have the admin choices respected.
> */
> pc_action_set_param(pc, SLPC_PARAM_IGNORE_EFFICIENT_FREQUENCY,
> - freq < pc->rpe_freq);
> + freq < xe_guc_pc_get_rpe_freq(pc));
>
> return pc_action_set_param(pc,
> SLPC_PARAM_GLOBAL_MIN_GT_UNSLICE_FREQ_MHZ,
> @@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ static void mtl_update_rpa_value(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> pc->rpa_freq = decode_freq(REG_FIELD_GET(MTL_RPA_MASK, reg));
> }
>
> -static void mtl_update_rpe_value(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> +static u32 mtl_get_rpe_freq(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> {
> struct xe_gt *gt = pc_to_gt(pc);
> u32 reg;
> @@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ static void mtl_update_rpe_value(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> else
> reg = xe_mmio_read32(>->mmio, MTL_GT_RPE_FREQUENCY);
>
> - pc->rpe_freq = decode_freq(REG_FIELD_GET(MTL_RPE_MASK, reg));
> + return decode_freq(REG_FIELD_GET(MTL_RPE_MASK, reg));
> }
>
> static void tgl_update_rpa_value(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> @@ -409,24 +409,22 @@ static void tgl_update_rpa_value(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> }
> }
>
> -static void tgl_update_rpe_value(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> +static u32 pvc_get_rpe_freq(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> {
> struct xe_gt *gt = pc_to_gt(pc);
> - struct xe_device *xe = gt_to_xe(gt);
> u32 reg;
>
> - /*
> - * For PVC we still need to use fused RP1 as the approximation for RPe
> - * For other platforms than PVC we get the resolved RPe directly from
> - * PCODE at a different register
> - */
> - if (xe->info.platform == XE_PVC) {
> - reg = xe_mmio_read32(>->mmio, PVC_RP_STATE_CAP);
> - pc->rpe_freq = REG_FIELD_GET(RP1_MASK, reg) * GT_FREQUENCY_MULTIPLIER;
> - } else {
> - reg = xe_mmio_read32(>->mmio, FREQ_INFO_REC);
> - pc->rpe_freq = REG_FIELD_GET(RPE_MASK, reg) * GT_FREQUENCY_MULTIPLIER;
> - }
> + reg = xe_mmio_read32(>->mmio, PVC_RP_STATE_CAP);
> + return REG_FIELD_GET(RP1_MASK, reg) * GT_FREQUENCY_MULTIPLIER;
> +}
> +
> +static u32 tgl_get_rpe_freq(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> +{
> + struct xe_gt *gt = pc_to_gt(pc);
> + u32 reg;
> +
> + reg = xe_mmio_read32(>->mmio, FREQ_INFO_REC);
> + return REG_FIELD_GET(RPE_MASK, reg) * GT_FREQUENCY_MULTIPLIER;
> }
>
> static void pc_update_rp_values(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> @@ -434,20 +432,10 @@ static void pc_update_rp_values(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> struct xe_gt *gt = pc_to_gt(pc);
> struct xe_device *xe = gt_to_xe(gt);
>
> - if (GRAPHICS_VERx100(xe) >= 1270) {
> + if (GRAPHICS_VERx100(xe) >= 1270)
> mtl_update_rpa_value(pc);
> - mtl_update_rpe_value(pc);
> - } else {
> + else
> tgl_update_rpa_value(pc);
> - tgl_update_rpe_value(pc);
> - }
> -
> - /*
> - * RPe is decided at runtime by PCODE. In the rare case where that's
> - * smaller than the fused min, we will trust the PCODE and use that
> - * as our minimum one.
> - */
> - pc->rpn_freq = min(pc->rpn_freq, pc->rpe_freq);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -561,9 +549,23 @@ u32 xe_guc_pc_get_rpa_freq(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> */
> u32 xe_guc_pc_get_rpe_freq(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> {
> - pc_update_rp_values(pc);
> + struct xe_gt *gt = pc_to_gt(pc);
> + struct xe_device *xe = gt_to_xe(gt);
> + u32 freq;
>
> - return pc->rpe_freq;
> + /*
> + * For PVC we still need to use fused RP1 as the approximation for RPe
> + * For other platforms than PVC we get the resolved RPe directly from
> + * PCODE at a different register
> + */
> + if (GRAPHICS_VERx100(xe) == 1260)
> + freq = pvc_get_rpe_freq(pc);
> + else if (GRAPHICS_VERx100(xe) >= 1270)
> + freq = mtl_get_rpe_freq(pc);
> + else
> + freq = tgl_get_rpe_freq(pc);
> +
> + return freq;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -1022,7 +1024,7 @@ static int pc_set_mert_freq_cap(struct xe_guc_pc *pc)
> /*
> * Ensure min and max are bound by MERT_FREQ_CAP until driver loads.
> */
> - ret = pc_set_min_freq(pc, min(pc->rpe_freq, pc_max_freq_cap(pc)));
> + ret = pc_set_min_freq(pc, min(xe_guc_pc_get_rpe_freq(pc), pc_max_freq_cap(pc)));
> if (!ret)
> ret = pc_set_max_freq(pc, min(pc->rp0_freq, pc_max_freq_cap(pc)));
>
> @@ -1340,7 +1342,7 @@ static void xe_guc_pc_fini_hw(void *arg)
> XE_WARN_ON(xe_guc_pc_stop(pc));
>
> /* Bind requested freq to mert_freq_cap before unload */
> - pc_set_cur_freq(pc, min(pc_max_freq_cap(pc), pc->rpe_freq));
> + pc_set_cur_freq(pc, min(pc_max_freq_cap(pc), xe_guc_pc_get_rpe_freq(pc)));
>
> xe_force_wake_put(gt_to_fw(pc_to_gt(pc)), fw_ref);
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc_types.h
> index 5e4ea53fbee6..f27c05d81706 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc_types.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc_types.h
> @@ -21,8 +21,6 @@ struct xe_guc_pc {
> u32 rp0_freq;
> /** @rpa_freq: HW RPa frequency - The Achievable one */
> u32 rpa_freq;
> - /** @rpe_freq: HW RPe frequency - The Efficient one */
> - u32 rpe_freq;
> /** @rpn_freq: HW RPN frequency - The Minimum one */
> u32 rpn_freq;
> /** @user_requested_min: Stash the minimum requested freq by user */
> --
> 2.43.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-08 3:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-04 19:57 [PATCH v6 0/2] drm/xe/guc: Remove cached frequency values for GuC SLPC Sk Anirban
2025-11-04 19:57 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] drm/xe/guc: Eliminate RPe caching for SLPC parameter handling Sk Anirban
2025-11-07 1:51 ` Belgaumkar, Vinay
2025-11-08 3:23 ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2025-11-10 9:46 ` Anirban, Sk
2025-11-04 19:57 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] drm/xe/guc: Eliminate RPa frequency caching Sk Anirban
2025-11-08 3:21 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2025-11-05 2:51 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for drm/xe/guc: Remove cached frequency values for GuC SLPC (rev3) Patchwork
2025-11-05 3:54 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-11-05 9:46 ` ✓ Xe.CI.Full: " Patchwork
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-11-12 18:51 [PATCH v6 0/2] drm/xe/guc: Remove cached frequency values for GuC SLPC Sk Anirban
2025-11-12 18:51 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] drm/xe/guc: Eliminate RPe caching for SLPC parameter handling Sk Anirban
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=aQ63pHic8tUHW13w@intel.com \
--to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=anshuman.gupta@intel.com \
--cc=badal.nilawar@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=karthik.poosa@intel.com \
--cc=mallesh.koujalagi@intel.com \
--cc=raag.jadav@intel.com \
--cc=riana.tauro@intel.com \
--cc=sk.anirban@intel.com \
--cc=soham.purkait@intel.com \
--cc=vinay.belgaumkar@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