Quoting Sagar Arun Kamble (2018-03-19 09:51:08)
>
>
> On 3/14/2018 3:07 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > @@ -757,8 +767,10 @@ static void guc_submission_tasklet(unsigned long data)
> >
> > rq = port_request(&port[0]);
> > }
> > - if (!rq)
> > + if (!rq) {
> > execlists_clear_active(execlists, EXECLISTS_ACTIVE_USER);
> > + intel_rps_update_engine(engine, NULL);
> I think we also need to do this (update_engine(NULL)) while handling
> preemption completion for both GuC and execlists also.
> Doing it as part of execlists_cancel_port_requests will cover all those
> cases including reset.
> Am I right?
While we don't need it in the intermediate (internal) context switches to
preempt. That is always preceded by execlists_user_end (cancelling the
context frequency selection) or succeeded by the next
execlists_user_begin (selecting the next frequency). However, that was
change was already made to simplify execlists->active handling ;)
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
