On 25/10/2017 10:13, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-10-25 10:06:01)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index bafe1cdd57d8..08bbceaeb9b8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -3349,6 +3349,7 @@ i915_gem_idle_work_handler(struct work_struct *work)
intel_engines_mark_idle(dev_priv);
i915_gem_timelines_mark_idle(dev_priv);
+ i915_pmu_gt_idle(dev_priv);
Heads up, the new trend here is to use "park". Does i915_pmu_park_gt()
or i915_pmu_gt_park() work for you?
Okay I did not manage to stay up to speed with the park/unpark
threads/chats. But as much as I picked up, the difference here is rather
than parking the PMU, we are notifying is GT is idle/active.
In the light of this, and if I got the gist right, perhaps
i915_pmu_gt_(un)parked would make sense?
Regards,
Tvrtko
GEM_BUG_ON(!dev_priv->gt.awake);
dev_priv->gt.awake = false;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
index d140fcf5c6a3..165988932c8b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static void mark_busy(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
i915_update_gfx_val(i915);
if (INTEL_GEN(i915) >= 6)
gen6_rps_busy(i915);
+ i915_pmu_gt_active(i915);
And unpark here.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
