Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-07-02 16:36:28) > > On 02/07/2018 10:07, Chris Wilson wrote: > > When using the pollable spinner, we often want to use it as a means of > > ensuring the task is running on the GPU before switching to something > > else. In which case we don't want to add extra delay inside the spinner, > > but the current 1000 NOPs add on order of 5us, which is often larger > > than the target latency. > > > > v2: Don't change perf_pmu as that is sensitive to the extra CPU latency > > from a tight GPU spinner. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@xxxxxxxxx> #v1 > > Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> #v1 > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > lib/igt_dummyload.c | 3 ++- > > lib/igt_dummyload.h | 1 + > > tests/gem_ctx_isolation.c | 1 + > > tests/gem_eio.c | 1 + > > tests/gem_exec_latency.c | 4 ++-- > > 5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/igt_dummyload.c b/lib/igt_dummyload.c > > index 94efdf745..7beb66244 100644 > > --- a/lib/igt_dummyload.c > > +++ b/lib/igt_dummyload.c > > @@ -199,7 +199,8 @@ emit_recursive_batch(igt_spin_t *spin, > > * between function calls, that appears enough to keep SNB out of > > * trouble. See https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102262 > > */ > > - batch += 1000; > > + if (!(opts->flags & IGT_SPIN_FAST)) > > + batch += 1000; > > igt_require(!snb) or something, given the comment whose last two lines > can be seen in the diff above? It's not a machine killer since we have the required fix in the kernel, it just has interesting system latency. That latency is not specific to snb, and whether we want to trade system latency vs gpu latency is the reason we punt the decision to the caller. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
