On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:56:28AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 14/02/2017 11:44, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> >index cdc7da60d37a..aa886b5fb2cd 100644
> >--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> >+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> >@@ -1350,13 +1350,20 @@ static void snb_gt_irq_handler(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > static __always_inline void
> > gen8_cs_irq_handler(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, u32 iir, int test_shift)
> > {
> >- if (iir & (GT_RENDER_USER_INTERRUPT << test_shift))
> >- notify_ring(engine);
> >+ bool tasklet = false;
> >
> > if (iir & (GT_CONTEXT_SWITCH_INTERRUPT << test_shift)) {
> > set_bit(ENGINE_IRQ_EXECLIST, &engine->irq_posted);
> >- tasklet_hi_schedule(&engine->irq_tasklet);
> >+ tasklet = true;
> > }
> >+
> >+ if (iir & (GT_RENDER_USER_INTERRUPT << test_shift)) {
> >+ notify_ring(engine);
> >+ tasklet |= i915.enable_guc_submission;
>
> Hm.. noticed that BXT was quite unhappy in CI?
>
> I wonder if we need to set ENGINE_IRQ_EXECLISTS here (and clear it
> in the irq tasklet as well) to be fully identical between the two
> backends.
>
> Not saying that was the reason for the CI unhappiness, just an
> observation at this stage.
I don't think we want to. Note that the bit will always be unset, so
that shouldn't be causing the intel_execlists_idle() timeout. I was
fearing a missed interrupt as we only idle once the request list is
empty, but that means we didn't process the interrupt. Or something
scary like that. (I do recall seeing missed interrupts on my skl with
guc btw, don't know if that is still a feature.)
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
