Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-06-28 13:29:32) > > On 28/06/2018 13:11, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-06-28 13:07:51) > >> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-06-28 12:56:56) > >>> And tasklet kick from intel_enable_engine_stats, hm yep. But wouldn't > >>> taking the timeline lock around active state reconstruction solve that > >>> simpler? > >> > >> Can you? We probably can. (That one was a very recent discovery and > >> quick fix.) > > > > The biggest issue being whether or not the same locking applies equally > > to all submission backends. That's not yet true, but then again we don't > > use stats everywhere. So whether or not that's an issue, I don't know, > > but it's enough to make me want to punt changing the locking inside > > intel_enable_engine_stats to a separate patch. > > Big benefit is removing the extra tasklet schedule from engine stats > which is in fact even racy. It's racy, but the tasklet being run more often than required is just wasted effort. Unless you think we can get ourselves into a loop here? > We need the state reconstruction to be > atomic so I think it really needs to be under the engine lock. > > tasklet_disable/enable can then also be dropped I think. > > To which patch in this series that belongs is the question. Last one I > think, when all is in place that port updates are protected by the > timeline lock. I definitely support it being a new patch. I don't think the race is a problem that requires preventative work. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
