From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
To: Zongyao Bai <zongyao.bai@intel.com>
Cc: <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>, <jia.yao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/xe/forcewake: add delayed-release optimization
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 20:09:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aiom7bfet3CddhLq@gsse-cloud1.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260601213804.707256-1-zongyao.bai@intel.com>
On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 09:38:04PM +0000, Zongyao Bai wrote:
> Add delayed-release optimization:
> - Add domain sleep 200us after xe_force_wake_put()
> - Skip MMIO wake in xe_force_wake_get() if domain still awake.
> Reduces frequent wake/sleep cycles for back-to-back operations.
> Examples of scenarios: zeDeviceGetGlobalTimestamps read by VTune, PTI
>
I think this concept makes sense, as MMIO read operations are relatively
expensive in terms of time cost (perhaps ~5 µs). However, the downside
is increased power usage.
Should we make delayed release an optional call—for example,
xe_force_wake_put_delay—and only use it in specific critical paths? For
instance, we could limit its use to paths tied to Level Zero calls like
zeDeviceGetGlobalTimestamps.
This gets a bit tricky if xe_force_wake_put_delay is called and is not
the last reference, followed by xe_force_wake_put being the final
reference. However, it should be straightforward to track that an
delayed put was requested and have the final xe_force_wake_put issue the
delay.
> Signed-off-by: Zongyao Bai <zongyao.bai@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c | 111 +++++++++++++++++------
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.h | 4 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake_types.h | 11 +++
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c | 4 +-
> 4 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c
> index 197e2197bd0a..183a17fa6d68 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c
> @@ -6,15 +6,20 @@
> #include "xe_force_wake.h"
>
> #include <drm/drm_util.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/hrtimer.h>
>
> #include "regs/xe_gt_regs.h"
> #include "regs/xe_reg_defs.h"
> +#include "xe_device.h"
> #include "xe_gt.h"
> #include "xe_gt_printk.h"
> #include "xe_mmio.h"
> +#include "xe_pm.h"
> #include "xe_sriov.h"
>
> #define XE_FORCE_WAKE_ACK_TIMEOUT_MS 50
> +#define XE_FORCE_WAKE_HOLD_DELAY_US 200
How did you choose this value? It seems like it should be something
configurable via Kconfig or configfs.
>
> static const char *str_wake_sleep(bool wake)
> {
> @@ -27,6 +32,8 @@ static void mark_domain_initialized(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> fw->initialized_domains |= BIT(id);
> }
>
> +static enum hrtimer_restart xe_force_wake_domain_timer(struct hrtimer *timer);
> +
> static void init_domain(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> enum xe_force_wake_domain_id id,
> struct xe_reg reg, struct xe_reg ack)
> @@ -38,11 +45,29 @@ static void init_domain(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> domain->reg_ack = ack;
> domain->val = FORCEWAKE_MT(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL);
> domain->mask = FORCEWAKE_MT_MASK(FORCEWAKE_KERNEL);
> + domain->fw_back = fw;
> + hrtimer_setup(&domain->timer, xe_force_wake_domain_timer,
> + CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
>
> mark_domain_initialized(fw, id);
> }
>
> -void xe_force_wake_init_gt(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_force_wake *fw)
> +static void xe_force_wake_fini(void *arg)
> +{
> + struct xe_force_wake *fw = arg;
> + struct xe_gt *gt = fw->gt;
> + struct xe_force_wake_domain *domain;
> + unsigned int tmp;
> +
> + for_each_fw_domain(domain, fw, tmp) {
> + xe_gt_WARN(gt, domain->ref,
> + "Forcewake domain %d still referenced (%u) at teardown\n",
> + domain->id, domain->ref);
Is the warning above actually valid? It seems fairly normal for a fini
to race with a delayed fw put. I would drop this.
> + hrtimer_cancel(&domain->timer);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +int xe_force_wake_init_gt(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_force_wake *fw)
> {
> struct xe_device *xe = gt_to_xe(gt);
>
> @@ -58,6 +83,8 @@ void xe_force_wake_init_gt(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_force_wake *fw)
> FORCEWAKE_GT,
> FORCEWAKE_ACK_GT);
> }
> +
> + return devm_add_action_or_reset(xe->drm.dev, xe_force_wake_fini, fw);
> }
>
> void xe_force_wake_init_engines(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_force_wake *fw)
> @@ -142,10 +169,36 @@ static void domain_sleep(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_force_wake_domain *domain)
> __domain_ctl(gt, domain, false);
> }
>
> -static int domain_sleep_wait(struct xe_gt *gt,
> - struct xe_force_wake_domain *domain)
> +static enum hrtimer_restart xe_force_wake_domain_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
> {
> - return __domain_wait(gt, domain, false);
> + struct xe_force_wake_domain *domain =
> + container_of(timer, struct xe_force_wake_domain, timer);
> + struct xe_force_wake *fw = domain->fw_back;
> + struct xe_gt *gt = fw->gt;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + xe_gt_assert(gt, !xe_pm_runtime_suspended(gt_to_xe(gt)));
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&fw->lock, flags);
I'd use guard(spinlock_irqsave) here rather manually unlock this.
hrtimer_forward_now should be safe under fw->lock unless I'm missing
something.
> +
> + if (!(fw->timer_domains & BIT(domain->id)) || domain->ref) {
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fw->lock, flags);
> + return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> + }
> + if (domain->timer_rearm) {
> + domain->timer_rearm = false;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fw->lock, flags);
> + hrtimer_forward_now(timer,
> + ns_to_ktime(XE_FORCE_WAKE_HOLD_DELAY_US *
> + NSEC_PER_USEC));
> + return HRTIMER_RESTART;
> + }
> + fw->timer_domains &= ~BIT(domain->id);
> + domain_sleep(gt, domain);
> + fw->awake_domains &= ~BIT(domain->id);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fw->lock, flags);
> +
> + return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -187,8 +240,13 @@ unsigned int __must_check xe_force_wake_get(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> spin_lock_irqsave(&fw->lock, flags);
> for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, ref_rqst, fw, tmp) {
> if (!domain->ref++) {
> - awake_rqst |= BIT(domain->id);
> - domain_wake(gt, domain);
> + if (fw->awake_domains & BIT(domain->id)) {
> + fw->timer_domains &= ~BIT(domain->id);
> + hrtimer_try_to_cancel(&domain->timer);
> + } else {
> + awake_rqst |= BIT(domain->id);
> + domain_wake(gt, domain);
> + }
> }
> ref_incr |= BIT(domain->id);
> }
> @@ -213,27 +271,25 @@ unsigned int __must_check xe_force_wake_get(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> }
>
> /**
> - * xe_force_wake_put - Decrement the refcount and put domain to sleep if refcount becomes 0
> + * xe_force_wake_put - Decrement the refcount and arm the delayed-sleep timer
> * @fw: Pointer to the force wake structure
> * @fw_ref: return of xe_force_wake_get()
> *
> - * This function reduces the reference counts for domains in fw_ref. If
> - * refcount for any of the specified domain reaches 0, it puts the domain to sleep
> - * and waits for acknowledgment for domain to sleep within 50 milisec timeout.
> - * Warns in case of timeout of ack from domain.
> + * This function reduces the reference counts for domains in fw_ref. When a
> + * domain's refcount reaches 0 the sleep request is not issued immediately;
> + * instead a hrtimer is armed for XE_FORCE_WAKE_HOLD_DELAY_US so that a rapid
> + * xe_force_wake_get() can reuse the still-awake domain at zero MMIO cost. On
> + * timer expiry, if the domain is still idle, the sleep request is written.
> + * Mirroring i915's fw_domains_put(), the deferred sleep is fire-and-forget:
> + * no sleep ACK is polled, since the next wake re-waits for the wake ACK.
Let's not mention the i915 in Xe code.
> */
> void xe_force_wake_put(struct xe_force_wake *fw, unsigned int fw_ref)
> {
> struct xe_gt *gt = fw->gt;
> struct xe_force_wake_domain *domain;
> - unsigned int tmp, sleep = 0;
> + unsigned int tmp;
> unsigned long flags;
> - int ack_fail = 0;
>
> - /*
> - * Avoid unnecessary lock and unlock when the function is called
> - * in error path of individual domains.
> - */
Why delete this comment?
> if (!fw_ref)
> return;
>
> @@ -245,20 +301,19 @@ void xe_force_wake_put(struct xe_force_wake *fw, unsigned int fw_ref)
> xe_gt_assert(gt, domain->ref);
>
> if (!--domain->ref) {
> - sleep |= BIT(domain->id);
> - domain_sleep(gt, domain);
> + fw->timer_domains |= BIT(domain->id);
> + if (hrtimer_callback_running(&domain->timer)) {
> + domain->timer_rearm = true;
> + } else {
> + domain->timer_rearm = false;
> + hrtimer_start(&domain->timer,
> + ns_to_ktime(XE_FORCE_WAKE_HOLD_DELAY_US *
> + NSEC_PER_USEC),
> + HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> + }
> }
> }
> - for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, sleep, fw, tmp) {
> - if (domain_sleep_wait(gt, domain) == 0)
> - fw->awake_domains &= ~BIT(domain->id);
> - else
> - ack_fail |= BIT(domain->id);
> - }
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fw->lock, flags);
> -
> - xe_gt_WARN(gt, ack_fail, "Forcewake domain%s %#x failed to acknowledge sleep request\n",
> - str_plural(hweight_long(ack_fail)), ack_fail);
This deleted code for domain_sleep_wait / error probably needs to be in
xe_force_wake_domain_timer.
> }
>
> const char *xe_force_wake_domain_to_str(enum xe_force_wake_domain_id id)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.h
> index e2721f205d6c..19679b923dca 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.h
> @@ -11,8 +11,8 @@
>
> struct xe_gt;
>
> -void xe_force_wake_init_gt(struct xe_gt *gt,
> - struct xe_force_wake *fw);
> +int xe_force_wake_init_gt(struct xe_gt *gt,
> + struct xe_force_wake *fw);
> void xe_force_wake_init_engines(struct xe_gt *gt,
> struct xe_force_wake *fw);
> unsigned int __must_check xe_force_wake_get(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake_types.h
> index 14b7b86e801b..ee5675069fe0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake_types.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake_types.h
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> #ifndef _XE_FORCE_WAKE_TYPES_H_
> #define _XE_FORCE_WAKE_TYPES_H_
>
> +#include <linux/hrtimer.h>
> #include <linux/mutex.h>
> #include <linux/types.h>
>
> @@ -51,6 +52,8 @@ enum xe_force_wake_domains {
> XE_FORCEWAKE_ALL = BIT(XE_FW_DOMAIN_ID_COUNT)
> };
>
> +struct xe_force_wake;
> +
> /**
> * struct xe_force_wake_domain - Xe force wake power domain
> *
> @@ -82,6 +85,12 @@ struct xe_force_wake_domain {
> u32 mask;
> /** @ref: domain reference */
> u32 ref;
> + /** @timer_rearm: put() ran while callback was in-flight; callback must restart timer */
Protected fw_back->lock.
> + bool timer_rearm;
In general, I’d reorganize the layout so that structs are at the top of
xe_force_wake_domain, followed by u32 fields, and finally the bool
fields.
> + /** @timer: hrtimer for delayed sleep request */
> + struct hrtimer timer;
> + /** @fw_back: back pointer to parent xe_force_wake */
> + struct xe_force_wake *fw_back;
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -101,6 +110,8 @@ struct xe_force_wake {
> spinlock_t lock;
> /** @awake_domains: mask of all domains awake */
> unsigned int awake_domains;
> + /** @timer_domains: mask of domains with an outstanding delayed-sleep timer */
> + unsigned int timer_domains;
> /** @initialized_domains: mask of all initialized domains */
> unsigned int initialized_domains;
> /** @domains: force wake domains */
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
> index 783eb6d631b5..43a79698cd04 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
> @@ -511,7 +511,9 @@ int xe_gt_init_early(struct xe_gt *gt)
>
> xe_wa_process_gt_oob(gt);
>
> - xe_force_wake_init_gt(gt, gt_to_fw(gt));
> + err = xe_force_wake_init_gt(gt, gt_to_fw(gt));
> + if (err)
> + return err;
I'd add newline here.
Matt
> spin_lock_init(>->global_invl_lock);
>
> err = xe_gt_tlb_inval_init_early(gt);
> --
> 2.43.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-11 3:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-01 21:38 [PATCH] drm/xe/forcewake: add delayed-release optimization Zongyao Bai
2026-06-01 22:37 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for " Patchwork
2026-06-01 23:15 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-06-02 8:13 ` ✓ Xe.CI.FULL: " Patchwork
2026-06-11 1:03 ` [PATCH v2] " Zongyao Bai
2026-06-11 11:59 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2026-06-18 21:18 ` Bai, Zongyao
2026-06-11 1:13 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for drm/xe/forcewake: add delayed-release optimization (rev2) Patchwork
2026-06-11 1:58 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-06-11 3:09 ` Matthew Brost [this message]
2026-06-11 3:15 ` [PATCH] drm/xe/forcewake: add delayed-release optimization Matthew Brost
2026-06-25 1:37 ` Bai, Zongyao
2026-06-11 11:29 ` ✓ Xe.CI.FULL: success for drm/xe/forcewake: add delayed-release optimization (rev2) Patchwork
2026-06-25 8:19 ` [PATCH v3] drm/xe/forcewake: add delayed-release optimization Zongyao Bai
2026-06-25 8:51 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for drm/xe/forcewake: add delayed-release optimization (rev3) Patchwork
2026-06-25 9:26 ` ✗ Xe.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2026-06-25 10:55 ` ✗ Xe.CI.FULL: " Patchwork
2026-07-20 22:13 ` [PATCH v4] drm/xe/forcewake: add delayed-release optimization Zongyao Bai
2026-07-21 22:43 ` Matthew Brost
2026-07-20 22:18 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for drm/xe/forcewake: add delayed-release optimization (rev4) Patchwork
2026-07-20 22:20 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2026-07-20 22:54 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-07-21 5:00 ` ✓ Xe.CI.FULL: " Patchwork
2026-08-13 0:06 ` [PATCH v5 0/4] drm/xe/forcewake: add delayed-release optimization Zongyao Bai
2026-08-13 0:06 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] drm/xe/forcewake: synchronize engine-cycle access with unplug Zongyao Bai
2026-08-13 0:21 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-13 0:06 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] drm/xe/forcewake: add delayed-release state machine Zongyao Bai
2026-08-13 0:23 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-13 0:06 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] drm/xe/forcewake: flush delayed release at power boundaries Zongyao Bai
2026-08-13 0:23 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-13 0:06 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] drm/xe/forcewake: enable configurable delayed forcewake release Zongyao Bai
2026-08-13 0:18 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-13 0:13 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for drm/xe/forcewake: add delayed-release optimization (rev5) Patchwork
2026-08-13 0:15 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " 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=aiom7bfet3CddhLq@gsse-cloud1.jf.intel.com \
--to=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jia.yao@intel.com \
--cc=zongyao.bai@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