Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-02-04 12:08:50)
>
> On 04/02/2019 10:18, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> +static int effective_prio(const struct i915_request *rq)
> >>> +{
> >>> + /* Restrict mere WAIT boosts from triggering preemption */
> >>> + return rq_prio(rq) | __NO_PREEMPTION;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> I suggest adding i915_request_effective_prio to i915_request.h - it is
> >> verbose but avoids two implementation.
> >
> > Too verbose... And it may differ depending on backend details...
> >
> > We don't even need to or in no-preemption until later...
>
> Hmm.. I would hope it wouldn't depend on the backend. We should at least
> I think try to make things decoupled at this level.
I'm speculating about what the long term interface will be. If they can
only handle static priorities on a context level and take all
dependencies as semaphores, guc submission is a mere conduit and very
hands off.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
