On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 15:47 +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. > > v2: Joonas pointed out that unreserve_seqno() was now doing more than > doing seqno handling and should be renamed to reflect its wider purpose. > That also highlighted the new asymmetry with reserve_seqno(), so fixup > that and rename both to [un]reserve_seqno(). > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
