On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 7:07 PM Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This gave disappointing syslatency results until I put a cond_resched() > here and moved the one in put_pages_gtt to before the page alloc, see > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/260332/ > > The last really nasty wart for syslatency is the spin in > i915_gem_shrinker, for which I'm investigating > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/260365/ > > All 3 patches together give very reasonable syslatency results! (So > good that it's time to find a new worst case scenario!) > > The challenge for the patch as it stands, is who lands it? We can take > it through drm-intel (for merging in 4.21) but need Andrew's ack on top > of all to agree with that path. Or we split the patch and only land the > i915 portion once we backmerge the mm tree. I think pushing the i915 > portion through the mm tree is going to cause the most conflicts, so > would recommend against that. Splitting the patch and landing the mm part first sounds reasonable to me. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
