Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-01-17 10:45:16)
>
> On 15/01/2018 21:24, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > - if (wakeup)
> > - wake_up_process(wait->tsk);
> > + tsk = wait->tsk;
> > + } else {
> > + if (engine->irq_seqno_barrier &&
> > + i915_seqno_passed(seqno, wait->seqno - 1))
>
> Hm what is this about? Why -1 on platforms with coherency issues and not
> some other number? Needs a comment as minimum but still is a behaviour
> change which I did not immediately figure out how it goes with the
> commit message. If it is some additional optimization it needs to be
> split out into a separate patch.
It's a finger in the air statement that I don't expect to be more than
one seqno behind in the interrupt-vs-breadcrumb race. So far I haven't
been disappointed.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
