On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 19:47 +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
> v3: Pretty print the caps.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<SNIP>
> +++ b/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c
> @@ -32,7 +32,12 @@
> #include "igt_rand.h"
> #include "igt_sysfs.h"
>
> +#define BIT(x) (1ul << (x))
> +
> #define LOCAL_PARAM_HAS_SCHEDULER 41
> +#define HAS_SCHEDULER BIT(0)
> +#define HAS_PRIORITY BIT(1)
> +#define HAS_PREEMPTION BIT(2)
This seems to be all spaces?
> +static unsigned int has_scheduler(int fd)
> {
> drm_i915_getparam_t gp;
> - int has = -1;
> + unsigned int caps = 0;
> + char buf[200];
> + size_t len = 0;
>
> gp.param = LOCAL_PARAM_HAS_SCHEDULER;
> - gp.value = &has;
> + gp.value = (int *)∩︀
> drmIoctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GETPARAM, &gp);
>
> - return has > 0;
> + if (!caps)
> + return 0;
> +
> + len = snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "Has kernel scheduler");
> + if (caps & HAS_PRIORITY)
> + len += snprintf(buf + len, sizeof(buf) - len,
> + "%s context priorities",
> + caps & (HAS_PRIORITY - 2) ? "," : " with");
> +
> + if (caps & HAS_PREEMPTION)
> + len += snprintf(buf + len, sizeof(buf) - len,
> + "%s batchbuffer preemption",
> + caps & (HAS_PREEMPTION - 2) ? "," : " with");
The output is not going to be published in PEOPLE magazine, maybe we
can do a simpler indented "- with ..." prints :P
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
