On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:14:12AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
>
> On 21/02/2017 09:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:13:47AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>@@ -468,6 +469,7 @@ execute_notify(struct i915_sw_fence *fence, enum i915_sw_fence_notify state)
> >>
> >> switch (state) {
> >> case FENCE_COMPLETE:
> >>+ trace_i915_gem_request_execute(request);
> >> break;
> >
> >Move to __i915_gem_request_submit(). (One less complication for me).
>
> Ack.
>
> >I guess you are thinking of changing its name to
> >__i915_gem_request_execute().
>
> No, why? The idea is i915_gem_request_submit -> "ready for execution
> / dependencies resolved" and i915_gem_request_execute -> "about to
> be submitted to execution backend".
Right. Only "i915_gem_request_execute" is currently called
__i915_gem_request_submit().
add_request ->
[deps complete] ->
submit_notify ->
backend->submit() ->
[some time passes] ->
__i915_gem_request_submit()
You've convinced me that __i915_gem_request_execute is a step forward
from __i915_gem_request_submit.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
