Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-09-11 16:34:08) > > On 11/09/2017 14:09, Michał Winiarski wrote: > > There's no reason to hide those tracepoints. > > Let's also remove the DRM_I915_LOW_LEVEL_TRACEPOINTS Kconfig option. > > No numbers from (micro-)bechmarks showing how small the impact of doing > this is? I thought John was compiling this data. It will be just a no-op > on the fast path, but a bit more generated code. > > Assuming that will be fine, the only potentially problematic aspect that > comes to mind is the fact meaning of these tracepoints is a bit > different between execlists and guc. But maybe that is thinking to low > level (!) - in fact they are in both cases at points where i915 is > passing/receiving requests to/from hardware so not an issue? Along the same lines is that this implies that these are important enough to be ABI, and that means we need to make a long term decision on the viability and meaning of such tracepoints. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
