On ma, 2017-06-05 at 11:26 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The important condition that we need to check after enabling the
> interrupt for signaling is whether the request completed in the process
> (and so we missed that interrupt). A large cost in enabling the
> signaling (rather than waiters) is in waking up the auxiliary signaling
> thread, but we only need to do so to catch that missed interrupt. If we
> know we didn't miss any interrupts (because we didn't arm the interrupt)
> then we can skip waking the auxiliary thread.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
<SNIP>
> @@ -390,6 +391,7 @@ static bool __intel_engine_add_wait(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
>
> if (first) {
> spin_lock(&b->irq_lock);
> + irq_armed = !b->irq_armed;
This line here is quite confusing, "armed_irq" for local variable would
be *much* clearer. Could be further amended if I'm the only with such
mindset.
With a less confusing local variable name;
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Regards, Joonas
> b->irq_wait = wait;
> /* After assigning ourselves as the new bottom-half, we must
> * perform a cursory check to prevent a missed interrupt.
>
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
