Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-01-07 12:58:39)
>
> On 07/01/2019 12:16, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-01-07 11:58:13)
> >> On 05/01/2019 02:39, Carlos Santa wrote:
> >>> +static void gen8_watchdog_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct intel_engine_cs *engine = (struct intel_engine_cs *)data;
> >>> + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = engine->i915;
> >>> + enum forcewake_domains fw_domains;
> >>> + u32 current_seqno;
> >>> +
> >>> + switch (engine->id) {
> >>> + default:
> >>> + MISSING_CASE(engine->id);
> >>> + /* fall through */
> >>> + case RCS:
> >>> + fw_domains = FORCEWAKE_RENDER;
> >>> + break;
> >>> + case VCS:
> >>> + case VCS2:
> >>> + case VECS:
> >>> + fw_domains = FORCEWAKE_MEDIA;
> >>> + break;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + intel_uncore_forcewake_get(dev_priv, fw_domains);
> >>
> >> I'd be tempted to drop this and just use I915_WRITE. It doesn't feel
> >> like there is any performance to be gained with it and it embeds too
> >> much knowledge here.
> >
> > No, no, no. Let's not reintroduce a fw inside irq context on a frequent
> > timer again.
>
> Tasklet and hopefully watchdog timeouts are not frequent. :)
I thought the typical value mentioned elsewhere was a 1ms watchdog. Some
might say why even use a watchdog for longer than that as a hrtimer will
be more efficient (coupling in with other timer activity) ;)
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
