Quoting Jeff McGee (2018-03-21 17:33:04)
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:26:23AM -0700, jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> > index beb81f13a3cc..cec4e1653daf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> > @@ -1009,7 +1009,7 @@ static void execlists_submission_tasklet(unsigned long data)
> > * imposing the cost of a locked atomic transaction when submitting a
> > * new request (outside of the context-switch interrupt).
> > */
> > - if (test_bit(ENGINE_IRQ_EXECLIST, &engine->irq_posted))
> > + while (test_bit(ENGINE_IRQ_EXECLIST, &engine->irq_posted))
> Assuming that this accidentally went missing in the refactor. Chris?
No. process_csb became a do{} while. The caller did a test_bit to avoid
the function call for normal rescheduling paths.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
