From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
To: Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>
Cc: <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/4] drm/xe/multi_queue: Refactor CGP_SYNC send path
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 14:32:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aeqP01OXUXVRiDou@gsse-cloud1.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260423024954.1665095-8-niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>
On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 07:49:54PM -0700, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
> Factor the repeated CGP_SYNC action build-and-send sequence into a new
> helper guc_exec_queue_send_cgp_sync(). Drop the redundant guc parameter
> from __register_exec_queue_group() since it can be derived via
> exec_queue_to_guc(q). Remove xe_guc_exec_queue_group_add() which is now
> identical to the helper and replace its call site directly.
>
> No functional change.
>
> Assisted-by: GitHub Copilot:claude-sonnet-4.6
> Signed-off-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c | 65 +++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c
> index 104e65913dff..4171eff4e8ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c
> @@ -852,10 +852,27 @@ static void xe_guc_exec_queue_group_cgp_sync(struct xe_guc *guc,
> xe_guc_ct_send(&guc->ct, action, len, G2H_LEN_DW_MULTI_QUEUE_CONTEXT, 1);
> }
>
> -static void __register_exec_queue_group(struct xe_guc *guc,
> - struct xe_exec_queue *q,
> +static void guc_exec_queue_send_cgp_sync(struct xe_exec_queue *q)
> +{
> +#define MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_CGP_SYNC_SIZE (2)
> + struct xe_guc *guc = exec_queue_to_guc(q);
> + struct xe_exec_queue_group *group = q->multi_queue.group;
> + u32 action[MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_CGP_SYNC_SIZE];
> + int len = 0;
> +
> + action[len++] = XE_GUC_ACTION_MULTI_QUEUE_CONTEXT_CGP_SYNC;
> + action[len++] = group->primary->guc->id;
> +
> + xe_gt_assert(guc_to_gt(guc), len <= MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_CGP_SYNC_SIZE);
> +#undef MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_CGP_SYNC_SIZE
> +
> + xe_guc_exec_queue_group_cgp_sync(guc, q, action, len);
> +}
> +
> +static void __register_exec_queue_group(struct xe_exec_queue *q,
> struct guc_ctxt_registration_info *info)
> {
> + struct xe_guc *guc = exec_queue_to_guc(q);
> #define MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_REG_SIZE (8)
> u32 action[MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_REG_SIZE];
> int len = 0;
> @@ -880,29 +897,6 @@ static void __register_exec_queue_group(struct xe_guc *guc,
> xe_guc_exec_queue_group_cgp_sync(guc, q, action, len);
> }
>
> -static void xe_guc_exec_queue_group_add(struct xe_guc *guc,
> - struct xe_exec_queue *q)
> -{
> -#define MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_CGP_SYNC_SIZE (2)
> - u32 action[MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_CGP_SYNC_SIZE];
> - int len = 0;
> -
> - xe_gt_assert(guc_to_gt(guc), xe_exec_queue_is_multi_queue_secondary(q));
> -
> - action[len++] = XE_GUC_ACTION_MULTI_QUEUE_CONTEXT_CGP_SYNC;
> - action[len++] = q->multi_queue.group->primary->guc->id;
> -
> - xe_gt_assert(guc_to_gt(guc), len <= MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_CGP_SYNC_SIZE);
> -#undef MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_CGP_SYNC_SIZE
> -
> - /*
> - * The above XE_GUC_ACTION_MULTI_QUEUE_CONTEXT_CGP_SYNC do expect a
> - * XE_GUC_ACTION_NOTIFY_MULTI_QUEUE_CONTEXT_CGP_SYNC_DONE response
> - * from guc.
> - */
> - xe_guc_exec_queue_group_cgp_sync(guc, q, action, len);
> -}
> -
> static void __register_mlrc_exec_queue(struct xe_guc *guc,
> struct xe_exec_queue *q,
> struct guc_ctxt_registration_info *info)
> @@ -1028,7 +1022,7 @@ static void register_exec_queue(struct xe_exec_queue *q, int ctx_type)
> set_exec_queue_registered(q);
> trace_xe_exec_queue_register(q);
> if (xe_exec_queue_is_multi_queue_primary(q))
> - __register_exec_queue_group(guc, q, &info);
> + __register_exec_queue_group(q, &info);
> else if (xe_exec_queue_is_parallel(q))
> __register_mlrc_exec_queue(guc, q, &info);
> else if (!xe_exec_queue_is_multi_queue_secondary(q))
> @@ -1038,7 +1032,7 @@ static void register_exec_queue(struct xe_exec_queue *q, int ctx_type)
> init_policies(guc, q);
>
> if (xe_exec_queue_is_multi_queue_secondary(q))
> - xe_guc_exec_queue_group_add(guc, q);
> + guc_exec_queue_send_cgp_sync(q);
> }
>
> static u32 wq_space_until_wrap(struct xe_exec_queue *q)
> @@ -1887,21 +1881,8 @@ static void __guc_exec_queue_process_msg_set_multi_queue_priority(struct xe_sche
> {
> struct xe_exec_queue *q = msg->private_data;
>
> - if (guc_exec_queue_allowed_to_change_state(q)) {
> -#define MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_CGP_SYNC_SIZE (2)
> - struct xe_guc *guc = exec_queue_to_guc(q);
> - struct xe_exec_queue_group *group = q->multi_queue.group;
> - u32 action[MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_CGP_SYNC_SIZE];
> - int len = 0;
> -
> - action[len++] = XE_GUC_ACTION_MULTI_QUEUE_CONTEXT_CGP_SYNC;
> - action[len++] = group->primary->guc->id;
> -
> - xe_gt_assert(guc_to_gt(guc), len <= MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_CGP_SYNC_SIZE);
> -#undef MAX_MULTI_QUEUE_CGP_SYNC_SIZE
> -
> - xe_guc_exec_queue_group_cgp_sync(guc, q, action, len);
> - }
> + if (guc_exec_queue_allowed_to_change_state(q))
> + guc_exec_queue_send_cgp_sync(q);
>
> kfree(msg);
> }
> --
> 2.43.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-23 21:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-23 2:49 [RFC 0/4] drm/xe/multi_queue: Handle lost message during VF migration Niranjana Vishwanathapura
2026-04-23 2:49 ` [RFC 1/4] drm/xe/multi_queue: Remove redundant assignment in guc_exec_queue_run_job Niranjana Vishwanathapura
2026-04-23 21:30 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-23 2:49 ` [RFC 2/4] drm/xe/multi_queue: Refactor CGP_SYNC send path Niranjana Vishwanathapura
2026-04-23 21:32 ` Matthew Brost [this message]
2026-04-23 2:49 ` [RFC 3/4] drm/xe/multi_queue: Handle VF recovery in CGP_SYNC and queue registration paths Niranjana Vishwanathapura
2026-04-23 21:45 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-23 2:49 ` [RFC 4/4] drm/xe/multi_queue: Add needs_cgp_sync mechanism for VF post-migration recovery Niranjana Vishwanathapura
2026-04-23 21:44 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-23 2:55 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for drm/xe/multi_queue: Handle lost message during VF migration Patchwork
2026-04-23 2:57 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2026-04-23 3:44 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-04-23 13:29 ` ✗ Xe.CI.FULL: failure " Patchwork
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=aeqP01OXUXVRiDou@gsse-cloud1.jf.intel.com \
--to=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=niranjana.vishwanathapura@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