On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:22:40AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 21/02/2017 09:47, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:13:49AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >>@@ -593,6 +595,8 @@ static void intel_lrc_irq_handler(unsigned long data) > >> execlists_context_status_change(port[0].request, > >> INTEL_CONTEXT_SCHEDULE_OUT); > >> > >>+ trace_i915_gem_request_out(port[0].request, > >>+ portidx++); > > > >Not seeing the value in portidx here, since if we process this as two > >seperate interrupts, it always comes out as 0. And 0 is what we expect. > >Knowing that we processed more than one completion event inside a single > >tasklet? > > Yes, but I know that is very unlikely. In all the traces I have > laying around here is is 546921 to 3 for port being zero. :) > > Perhaps the fact can also be derived from the timestamps on trace > events but it would be a bit of a heuristics. Sounds safer to just > report the fact at source, but I can also remove it if you want. I think I'd prefer it without portidx++. I just am not seeing the value in it, whereas in[0] or in[1] clearly does have value. I also don't think we are limiting ourselves to never adding extra information here. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
