[Intel-xe] [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/xe: Enable Fixed CCS mode setting
Andi Shyti
andi.shyti at linux.intel.com
Fri Dec 1 20:52:28 UTC 2023
Hi Niranjana,
looks good, just a few comments below.
...
> +static void __xe_gt_apply_ccs_mode(struct xe_gt *gt, u32 num_engines)
> +{
> + u32 mode = CCS_MODE_CSLICE_0_3_MASK; /* disable all by default */
> + struct xe_device *xe = gt_to_xe(gt);
> + struct xe_hw_engine *hwe;
> + int num_slices = hweight32(CCS_MASK(gt));
> + int width, cslice;
> + enum xe_hw_engine_id id;
please put 'id' and 'hwe' inside the for ()
> + u32 config = 0;
this should actually be sorted in a reverse Christmas tree shape.
> + xe_assert(xe, xe_gt_ccs_mode_enabled(gt));
> +
> + xe_assert(xe, num_engines && num_engines <= num_slices);
> + xe_assert(xe, !(num_slices % num_engines));
> +
> + /*
> + * Loop over all available slices and assign each a user engine.
> + *
> + * With 1 engine (ccs0):
> + * slice 0, 1, 2, 3: ccs0
> + *
> + * With 2 engines (ccs0, ccs1):
> + * slice 0, 2: ccs0
> + * slice 1, 3: ccs1
> + *
> + * With 4 engines (ccs0, ccs1, ccs2, ccs3):
> + * slice 0: ccs0
> + * slice 1: ccs1
> + * slice 2: ccs2
> + * slice 3: ccs3
> + */
> + for (width = num_slices / num_engines, cslice = 0; width--;) {
why not
for (....; width > 0; width--) {
...
}
as normally it's done? :-)
> + for_each_hw_engine(hwe, gt, id) {
> + if (hwe->class != XE_ENGINE_CLASS_COMPUTE)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (hwe->logical_instance >= num_engines)
> + break;
> +
> + config |= BIT(hwe->instance) << XE_HW_ENGINE_CCS0;
> +
> + /* If a slice is fused off, leave disabled */
> + while ((CCS_MASK(gt) & BIT(cslice)) == 0)
> + cslice++;
> +
> + mode &= ~CCS_MODE_CSLICE(cslice, CCS_MODE_CSLICE_MASK);
> + mode |= CCS_MODE_CSLICE(cslice, hwe->instance);
> + cslice++;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + xe_mmio_write32(gt, CCS_MODE, mode);
> +
> + xe_gt_info(gt, "CCS_MODE=%x config:%08x, num_engines:%d, num_slices:%d\n",
> + mode, config, num_engines, num_slices);
> +}
> +
> +void xe_gt_apply_ccs_mode(struct xe_gt *gt)
> +{
> + if (gt->ccs_mode.num_engines)
> + __xe_gt_apply_ccs_mode(gt, gt->ccs_mode.num_engines);
> +}
I don't see the need for this wrapper here... just:
void xe_gt_apply_ccs_mod(struct xe_gt *gt)
{
u32 num_engines = gt->css_mode.num_engines;
if (!num_engines)
return;
...
}
...
> +static inline bool xe_gt_ccs_mode_enabled(const struct xe_gt *gt)
> +{
> + /* Enable CCS mode interface on all platforms with more than one CCS engine */
This comment is misleading, since it's not doing any operation,
please, replace "Enable..." with "Check if it's enabled..."
> + return hweight32(CCS_MASK(gt)) > 1;
> +}
> +
> +#endif
...
> + /**
> + * @ccs_mode: Fixed mapping between CCS engines and compute slices.
> + * Through the per-gt 'ccs_mode' sysfs interface, the user can specify a
> + * fixed number of compute hardware engines to which the available compute
> + * slices are to be allocated. By default all compute slices are allocated
> + * to the first available compute engine instance. This user configuration
> + * change triggers a gt reset and it is expected that there are no open
> + * drm clients while doing so.
> + */
> + struct {
> + /** @num_engines: Number of CCS engines enabled */
> + u32 num_engines;
> + } ccs_mode;
why the need to have a struct here? It looks free complexity to
me.
Andi
> +
More information about the Intel-xe
mailing list