Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-03-15 14:53:08) > > On 15/03/2018 14:46, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-03-15 14:37:59) > >> > >> On 15/03/2018 13:45, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>> As we are making changes to igt_spin_t, one of the ideas was that we put > >>> the obj[] array there (with the offsets and flags setup correctly) so > >>> that we could just feed that in again later without having to worry > >>> about the relocations. > >> > >> I tried that before but we couldn't agree on resubmit semantics. > >> > >> My patch had igt_spin_batch_restart(fd, spin) - so emitting the exact > >> same batch, including the dependency. That would actually work well for > >> this use case. > >> > >> So if you are happy with that, I can resurrect that patch, add one more > >> to implement stuff from this patch, and rebase perf_pmu changes to follow. > > > > Honestly, best to do here first, as we will probably take forever to come > > up with something we both like and applies to more test cases. > > Don't quite get what you mean by "best to do here first" - where is > here? Fix perf_pmu, then worry about API. We're still waiting for kasan results, we may have more work ahead of us yet. > Still locally to perf_pmu so no generic spin batch resubmit yet? > But I can cache the obj array under spin_batch_t as a shortcut for time > being? I'd take igt_spin_t.obj[] :) But I don't insist on it, I'd like to get the wait-for-spin working before tackling the resubmit API. There's a few other places that either have a open-coded wait-for-submit, or need one. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
