Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2018-11-27 12:54:07) > Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > If the engine's seqno is already at our target seqno (most likely it > > hasn't been used since the last reset), we can skip serialising the > > engine and leave it as is. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c > > index 71107540581d..ca95ab2f4cfa 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c > > @@ -136,6 +136,9 @@ static int reset_all_global_seqno(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u32 seqno) > > intel_engine_get_seqno(engine), > > seqno); > > > > + if (seqno == engine->timeline.seqno) > > + continue; > > + > > Patch looks valid. Only concern is possibility of hiding > the idle assertion deeper. But as that is for icl > and debugfs stomping, I am in favour. Ssh, what if that was its primary raison d'etre? ;) Though given the failure, it's not going to completely hide them. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
