Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-12-15 17:22:57) > > On 15/12/2017 16:18, Lionel Landwerlin wrote: > > On 15/12/17 16:08, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2017-12-15 15:51:36) > >>> When monitoring the GPU with i915 perf, reports are tagged with a hw > >>> id. When also tracking the requests using the kernel tracepoints, if > >>> we include the hw_id from i915_gem_context, this allows us to > >>> correlate a process with hw id fields in the OA reports. > >> Maybe, but don't split the fence.context and fence.seqno. You should > >> also update the igt tools using the tracepoints. > >> -Chris > >> > > I would have thought the tools could deal with a different ordering :( > > At least as a benefit you get to refresh your Perl skills. ;) > > trace.pl and intel-gpu-overlay I think are the only two. > > I guess it would be possible to smarten both up to detect where the > fields they need are located but maybe too much work. That's the thinking that got us into this mess to begin with ;) But yes, it may remain much easier to keep igt in line with the kernel and just say no to backwards-compatibility for these devtools. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
