Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2018-02-20 10:57:44) > Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-02-20 10:45:12) > > @@ -398,7 +399,7 @@ static void preempt(int fd, unsigned ring, unsigned flags) > > igt_assert(gem_bo_busy(fd, spin[0]->handle)); > > } > > > > - for (int n = 0; n < 16; n++) > > + for (int n = 0; n < MAX_ELSP_QLEN; n++) > > igt_spin_batch_free(fd, spin[n]); > > ARRAY_SIZE() seems more appropriate in the for loops. Seems like you've > opted not to use it so much, why so? No idea. Next up will be we don't need so many individual spinners, just one submitted multiple times in different contexts/engines. > > @@ -450,6 +453,7 @@ static void preempt_other(int fd, unsigned ring) > > result, (n + 1)*sizeof(uint32_t), n + 1, > > 0, I915_GEM_DOMAIN_RENDER); > > > > + igt_debugfs_dump(fd, "i915_engine_info"); > > Lost and afraid hunk here? You can have my R-b for it in separate patch. Just lost. It ain't afraid of no bugs. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
