On 20/12/2017 10:49, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-12-20 09:45:41)
On 19/12/2017 21:45, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-12-19 15:45:42)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Rather than calibrate and emit nop batches, use a manually signalled chain
of spinners to generate the desired interrupts.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
- /* Unplug the calibrated queue and wait for all the fences */
- igt_spin_batch_free(gem_fd, spin);
- igt_assert_eq(poll(&pfd, 1, 2 * test_duration_ms), 1);
- close(pfd.fd);
+ pfd.fd = spin[i]->out_fence;
+ igt_spin_batch_set_timeout(spin[i], timeout_ms * 1e6);
+ igt_assert_eq(poll(&pfd, 1, 2 * timeout_ms), 1);
Oh, still with the synchronous behaviour, bleurgh.
I was attracted by the simplicity of this approach, but I can change to
set incremental timeouts and keep the merged fence if you think that's
better?
It was mostly surprise as I just have a preference for setting up
everything and then letting it go; fire-and-forget style. So that was
what I was expecting to see. It should basically be the difference of
adding a single function to merge the fences (albeit you have to write
that function). Shall we say both patterns have merit / analogues to the
real world?
It is using fence merging approach so it won't be a problem to keep
that, just with the spin batches. I mostly wanted to remove calibration
since you were nudging me in that direction. Don't mind really of the
specific mechanics of emitting interrupts so I am happy to go back a step.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
