Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-02-20 11:14:38)
>
> On 20/02/2018 10:57, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-02-20 10:47:42)
> >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Commit fe49789fab97 ("drm/i915: Deconstruct execute fence") re-arranged
> >> the code and moved the i915_gem_request_execute tracepoint to before the
> >> global seqno is assigned to the request.
> >>
> >> We need to move the tracepoint a bit later so this information is once
> >> again available.
> >
> > Ok, iirc my thinking was just to have the tracing early to show the
> > entry to i915_request_submit. If you are happy with having it at the
> > end with the details filled in, so am I :)
>
> We have trace_i915_gem_request_submit in the fence->submit_notify so I
> think it is OK.
>
> Would it be better to move it to just after req->global_seqno is set, so
> before enable_signalling (it would be under the lock)?
Personally, either the beginning or the end of this function make the
most sense to me (in the grand scheme of request flow). Or at least it
keeps the tracepoint out of the way :) There's some merit I feel to
avoid having it appear coupled to the assignment of global_seqno.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
