From: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>
To: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>,
<intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] drm/xe/sriov: Add debugfs to enable scheduler groups
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2025 16:36:43 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d6580e58-9e7b-4d5a-ae43-42154099260f@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a203d8b9-628f-4b5e-94ac-fadd45b1e9c1@intel.com>
On 12/8/2025 3:38 PM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>
> On 12/7/2025 12:04 AM, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
>> Reading the debugfs file lists the available configurations by name.
>> Writing the name of a configuration to the file will enable it.
>>
>> v2: don't print anything if the feature is unsupported (Michal), add
>> TODO for reworking init order to know if there are valid groups
>> when we register debugfs, check for basic feature support.
> btw, recently in Xe we started to follow core kernel rule and put the
> change log under the --- line
ok
>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>
>> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_debugfs.c | 126 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy.c | 19 +--
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_debugfs.c
>> index 5123ff1fb116..1be23809e624 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_debugfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_debugfs.c
>> @@ -156,6 +156,131 @@ static void pf_add_policy_attrs(struct xe_gt *gt, struct dentry *parent)
>> debugfs_create_file_unsafe("sample_period_ms", 0644, parent, parent, &sample_period_fops);
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * /sys/kernel/debug/dri/BDF/
>> + * ├── sriov
>> + * : ├── pf
>> + * : ├── tile0
>> + * : ├── gt0
>> + * : ├── sched_groups_mode
>> + */
>> +
>> +static const char *sched_group_mode_to_string(enum xe_sriov_sched_group_modes mode)
>> +{
>> + switch (mode) {
>> + case XE_SRIOV_SCHED_GROUPS_NONE:
>> + return "disabled";
> maybe we should be consistent and use either:
>
> "none" / XE_SRIOV_SCHED_GROUPS_NONE
> or
> "disabled" / XE_SRIOV_SCHED_GROUPS_DISABLED
I am ok with switching both to disabled. Or maybe we should just go with
"all_gt_engines", to indicate that all engines in one GT are in the same
group? Because AFAIU from the GuC POV you always have groups, the
question is if more than 1 group is actually active (and it also counts
as an actual mode instead of just being the disabled state)
>> + case XE_SRIOV_SCHED_GROUPS_MEDIA_SLICES:
>> + return "media_slices";
>> + default:
>> + return "unknown";
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int sched_groups_info(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct drm_printer p = drm_seq_file_printer(m);
>> + struct xe_gt *gt = extract_gt(m->private);
>> + u32 current_mode = gt->sriov.pf.policy.guc.sched_groups.current_mode;
>> + int mode = 0;
>> +
>> + if (!xe_sriov_gt_pf_policy_has_multi_group_modes(gt))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + for (mode = 0; mode < XE_SRIOV_SCHED_GROUPS_MODES_COUNT; mode++) {
>> + if (!xe_sriov_gt_pf_policy_has_sched_group_mode(gt, mode))
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + if (mode)
>> + drm_printf(&p, " ");
> nit: drm_puts() ?
I'd prefer not to add newlines here.
>
>> +
>> + if (mode == current_mode)
>> + drm_printf(&p, "[");
>> +
>> + drm_printf(&p, "%s", sched_group_mode_to_string(mode));
>> +
>> + if (mode == current_mode)
>> + drm_printf(&p, "]");
>> + }
>> +
>> + drm_printf(&p, "\n");
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int sched_groups_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>> +{
>> + return single_open(file, sched_groups_info, inode->i_private);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static ssize_t sched_groups_write(struct file *file, const char __user *ubuf,
>> + size_t size, loff_t *pos)
>> +{
>> + struct xe_gt *gt = extract_gt(file_inode(file)->i_private);
>> + char name[32];
>> + int ret;
>> + int m;
>> +
>> + if (*pos)
>> + return -ESPIPE;
>> +
>> + if (!size)
>> + return -ENODATA;
>> +
>> + if (!xe_sriov_gt_pf_policy_has_multi_group_modes(gt))
>> + return -ENODEV;
> maybe we should drop this condition?
>
> if we don't have multi-groups, we will still display:
>
> [disabled]
>
> so for consistency we should allow:
>
> echo disabled > sched_groups_mode
Sure, that makes things easier.
>
>> +
>> + if (size > sizeof(name) - 1)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + ret = simple_write_to_buffer(name, sizeof(name) - 1, pos, ubuf, size);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + return ret;
>> + name[ret] = '\0';
>> +
>> + for (m = 0; m < XE_SRIOV_SCHED_GROUPS_MODES_COUNT; m++)
>> + if (sysfs_streq(name, sched_group_mode_to_string(m)))
>> + break;
>> +
>> + if (m == XE_SRIOV_SCHED_GROUPS_MODES_COUNT)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + guard(xe_pm_runtime)(gt_to_xe(gt));
>> + ret = xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy_set_sched_groups_mode(gt, m);
>> +
>> + return (ret < 0) ? ret : size;
> we can drop ( ) here
ok
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct file_operations sched_groups_fops = {
>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> + .open = sched_groups_open,
>> + .read = seq_read,
>> + .write = sched_groups_write,
>> + .llseek = seq_lseek,
>> + .release = single_release,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static void pf_add_sched_groups(struct xe_gt *gt, struct dentry *parent)
>> +{
>> + xe_gt_assert(gt, gt == extract_gt(parent));
>> + xe_gt_assert(gt, PFID == extract_vfid(parent));
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * TODO: we currently call this function before we initialize scheduler
>> + * groups, so at this point in time we don't know if there are any
>> + * valid groups on the GT and we can't selectively register the debugfs
>> + * only if there are any. Therefore, we always register the debugfs
>> + * files if we're on a platform that has support for groups.
>> + * We should rework the flow so that debugfs is registered after the
>> + * policy init, so that we check if there are valid groups before
>> + * adding the debugfs files.
>> + */
>> + if (!xe_sriov_gt_pf_policy_has_sched_groups_support(gt))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + debugfs_create_file("sched_groups_mode", 0644, parent, parent, &sched_groups_fops);
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * /sys/kernel/debug/dri/BDF/
>> * ├── sriov
>> @@ -531,6 +656,7 @@ static void pf_populate_gt(struct xe_gt *gt, struct dentry *dent, unsigned int v
>> } else {
>> pf_add_config_attrs(gt, dent, PFID);
>> pf_add_policy_attrs(gt, dent);
>> + pf_add_sched_groups(gt, dent);
>>
>> drm_debugfs_create_files(pf_info, ARRAY_SIZE(pf_info), dent, minor);
>> }
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy.c
>> index 6a682d788b02..2cafacac5d8e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy.c
>> @@ -451,19 +451,24 @@ static void pf_sched_group_media_slices(struct xe_gt *gt, u32 **masks, u32 *num_
>> *num_masks = GUC_MAX_ENGINE_CLASSES * groups;
>> }
>>
>> -static void pf_init_sched_groups(struct xe_gt *gt)
> missing kernel doc
will add.
>
>> +bool xe_sriov_gt_pf_policy_has_sched_groups_support(struct xe_gt *gt)
>> {
>> - int m;
>> -
>> - xe_gt_assert(gt, IS_SRIOV_PF(gt_to_xe(gt)));
>> -
>> /*
>> * The GuC supports scheduler groups from v70.53.0, but a fix for it has
>> * been merged in v70.55.1, so we require the latter. The feature is
>> * also only enabled on BMG and newer FW.
>> */
>> - if (GUC_FIRMWARE_VER(>->uc.guc) < MAKE_GUC_VER(70, 55, 1) ||
>> - gt_to_xe(gt)->info.platform < XE_BATTLEMAGE)
>> + return GUC_FIRMWARE_VER(>->uc.guc) >= MAKE_GUC_VER(70, 55, 1) &&
>> + gt_to_xe(gt)->info.platform >= XE_BATTLEMAGE;
> and maybe we can introduce this function in patch 2/11 to avoid this diff?
will do.
Daniele
>
>> +}
>> +> +static void pf_init_sched_groups(struct xe_gt *gt)
>> +{
>> + int m;
>> +
>> + xe_gt_assert(gt, IS_SRIOV_PF(gt_to_xe(gt)));
>> +
>> + if (!xe_sriov_gt_pf_policy_has_sched_groups_support(gt))
>> return;
>>
>> /*
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy.h
>> index ceaf797ca21b..f5ea44dcaf82 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy.h
>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ int xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy_set_reset_engine(struct xe_gt *gt, bool enable);
>> bool xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy_get_reset_engine(struct xe_gt *gt);
>> int xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy_set_sample_period(struct xe_gt *gt, u32 value);
>> u32 xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy_get_sample_period(struct xe_gt *gt);
>> +bool xe_sriov_gt_pf_policy_has_sched_groups_support(struct xe_gt *gt);
>> bool xe_sriov_gt_pf_policy_has_multi_group_modes(struct xe_gt *gt);
>> bool xe_sriov_gt_pf_policy_has_sched_group_mode(struct xe_gt *gt, u32 mode);
>> int xe_gt_sriov_pf_policy_set_sched_groups_mode(struct xe_gt *gt, u32 value);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-09 0:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-06 23:03 [PATCH v2 00/11] Introduce SRIOV scheduler groups Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-06 23:03 ` [PATCH v2 01/11] drm/xe/gt: Add engine masks for each class Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-07 15:35 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-12-06 23:03 ` [PATCH v2 02/11] drm/xe/sriov: Initialize scheduler groups Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-07 21:57 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-12-08 17:36 ` Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-06 23:03 ` [PATCH v2 03/11] drm/xe/sriov: Add support for enabling " Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-07 21:57 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-12-08 17:41 ` Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-06 23:04 ` [PATCH v2 04/11] drm/xe/sriov: Scheduler groups are incompatible with multi-lrc Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-07 21:58 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-12-08 17:48 ` Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-06 23:04 ` [PATCH v2 05/11] drm/xe/sriov: Add handling for MLRC adverse event threshold Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-07 22:03 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-12-08 17:52 ` Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-08 18:27 ` Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-06 23:04 ` [PATCH v2 06/11] drm/xe/sriov: Add debugfs to enable scheduler groups Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-08 23:38 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-12-09 0:36 ` Daniele Ceraolo Spurio [this message]
2025-12-09 15:07 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-12-09 18:09 ` Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-06 23:04 ` [PATCH v2 07/11] drm/xe/sriov: Add debugfs with scheduler groups information Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-09 0:08 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-12-09 0:23 ` Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-06 23:04 ` [PATCH v2 08/11] drm/xe/sriov: Prep for multiple exec quantums and preemption timeouts Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-06 23:04 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] drm/xe/sriov: Add functions to set exec quantums for each group Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-06 23:04 ` [PATCH v2 10/11] drm/xe/sriov: Add functions to set preempt timeouts " Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-06 23:04 ` [PATCH v2 11/11] drm/xe/sriov: Add debugfs to set EQ and PT for scheduler groups Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2025-12-06 23:10 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for Introduce SRIOV scheduler groups (rev2) Patchwork
2025-12-06 23:11 ` ✓ 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=d6580e58-9e7b-4d5a-ae43-42154099260f@intel.com \
--to=daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=michal.wajdeczko@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