On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 09:52 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> In a synchronous setup, we may retire the last request before we
> complete allocating the next request. As the last request is retired, we
> queue a timer to mark the device as idle, and promptly have to execute
> ad cancel that timer once we complete allocating the request and need to
> keep the device awake. If we rearrange the mark_busy() to occur before
> we retire the previous request, we can skip this ping-pong.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<SNIP>
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
> @@ -265,6 +265,13 @@ static int reserve_seqno(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>
> static void unreserve_seqno(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> {
> + if (!--engine->i915->gt.active_requests) {
> + GEM_BUG_ON(!engine->i915->gt.awake);
> + mod_delayed_work(engine->i915->wq,
> + &engine->i915->gt.idle_work,
> + msecs_to_jiffies(100));
> + }
This function could use a better name, now it seems to tightly tie to
seqno only, and idle work is very unexpected. How about just
unreserve_engine vs. reserve_engine?
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
