On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 02:59:44PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 17/02/2017 11:55, Chris Wilson wrote: > >As a backup to waiting on a user-interrupt from the GPU, we use a heavy > >and frequent timer to wake up the waiting process should we detect an > >inconsistency whilst waiting. After seeing a "missed interrupt", the > >next time we wait, we restart the heavy timer. This patch is more > >reluctant to restart the timer and will only do so if we have not see any > >interrupts since when we started the fake irq timer. If we are seeing > >interrupts, then the waiters are being woken normally and we had an > >incoherency that caused to miss last time - that is unlikely to reoccur > >and so taking the risk of stalling again seems pragmatic. > > > >Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Very soothing now that I have discovered the pre-existing behaviour. :) > > Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks both of you for the review and suggestions, pushed to try and soothe CI even more. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
