On 20/04/2017 15:33, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:23:27PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
You either want to reset presumed_offset=-1 each time, or better for all
concerned write the correct address alongside the seqno (which also
enables NORELOC).
Delta incoming.
See attached.
Next concern is that I have full rings which implies that we are not
waiting on each batch before resubmitting with a new seqno?
If I throw a assert(!busy(batch_bo)) before the *b->mapped_seqno am I
going to be upset?
Yes you would. :) I had a sync (as a move to cpu domain) before seqno
update in the last version but it disappeared as I was fixing the whole
area of seqno tracking. So the balancing results in the patch are bogus
since the seqno can jump to latest ahead of the time...
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
