Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2017-09-26 13:14:39) > On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 10:32 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Michal wants to limit machines that can do preemption, which means that > > we no longer can assume that if we have a scheduler for execbuf, that > > implies we have preemption. > > > > v2: Try a capability mask instead > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/gem_exec_schedule.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c b/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c > > index 0b1925f1..85c69703 100644 > > --- a/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c > > +++ b/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c > > @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@ > > #include "igt_sysfs.h" > > > > #define LOCAL_PARAM_HAS_SCHEDULER 41 > > +#define HAS_SCHEDULER (1u << 0) > > +#define HAS_PREEMPTION (1u << 2) > > How about some BIT()? I think wehave it in IGT, at least I wrote > patches for it. > > Looks good to me, can you reference the latest Mesa patches in here and > the kernel counterpart (reference the kernel counterpart here too). Mesa doesn't care about this, no extension that I know declares preemption. It is quite happy just to check whether or not it can change the context priority, for the IMG_contxt_priority support. The kennel patches depends upon having this inplace for CI to run the tests on the series. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
