On 03/04/18 11:35, Chris Wilson wrote:
Let's avoid having to delve down the pointer chain to see if the i915
device has support for preemption and store that on the engine, which
made the decision in the first place!
v2: Refactor common preemption policy between execlists/guc.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tomasz Lis <tomasz.lis@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
<snip>
+static inline bool
+__execlists_need_preempt(int prio, int last)
Nitpick: this fits on a single line
Daniele
+{
+ return prio > max(0, last);
+}
+
static inline void
execlists_set_active(struct intel_engine_execlists *execlists,
unsigned int bit)
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
