On 19/12/2017 22:42, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-12-19 15:45:41)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Support creating spin batches which return an output fence using new
__igt_spin_batch_new_fence / igt_spin_batch_new_fence API.
This will be used fromthe perf_pmu@interrupts test to ensure user
interrupt generation from a batch with controlled duration.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
lib/igt_dummyload.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
lib/igt_dummyload.h | 10 +++++++++
2 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/igt_dummyload.c b/lib/igt_dummyload.c
index d19b4e5ea3d2..ef08ad580246 100644
--- a/lib/igt_dummyload.c
+++ b/lib/igt_dummyload.c
@@ -70,9 +70,9 @@ fill_reloc(struct drm_i915_gem_relocation_entry *reloc,
reloc->write_domain = write_domains;
}
-static void emit_recursive_batch(igt_spin_t *spin,
- int fd, uint32_t ctx, unsigned engine,
- uint32_t dep)
+static int emit_recursive_batch(igt_spin_t *spin,
+ int fd, uint32_t ctx, unsigned engine,
+ uint32_t dep, bool out_fence)
{
#define SCRATCH 0
#define BATCH 1
@@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ static void emit_recursive_batch(igt_spin_t *spin,
nengine = 0;
if (engine == -1) {
+ igt_assert_eq(out_fence, false);
Didn't fancy merging the fences together to return a composite out_fence?
No, just did not think of it. Will do that.
for_each_engine(fd, engine)
if (engine)
engines[nengine++] = engine;
@@ -165,22 +166,31 @@ static void emit_recursive_batch(igt_spin_t *spin,
execbuf.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(obj + (2 - execbuf.buffer_count));
execbuf.rsvd1 = ctx;
+ if (out_fence)
+ execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT;
if (out_fence)
execbuf.flags |= I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT;
Just to make future changes easier?
Might also be good to insert a igt_require(gem_has_exec_fence(fd)) here
as well. (Or earlier?)
Ack.
+igt_spin_t *__igt_spin_batch_new_fence(int fd,
+ uint32_t ctx,
+ unsigned engine);
+
+igt_spin_t *igt_spin_batch_new_fence(int fd,
+ uint32_t ctx,
+ unsigned engine);
Ok for now, I expect these will mangled into a new spin-batch factory
later on.
Yeah, I was thinking whether a more generic constructor would be better,
but then decided against sprinkling changes all over the place.
With an igt_require(),
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
If you want to merge the N engines' out_fences into one, that would save
me a task.
Thanks, will do.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
