Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-07-01 13:10:53) > On 01/07/2019 15:03, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-07-01 12:34:35) > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > >> index f92bace9caff..012d6d7f54e2 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > >> @@ -2104,6 +2104,14 @@ static int eb_oa_config(struct i915_execbuffer *eb) > >> if (err) > >> return err; > >> > >> + /* > >> + * If the perf stream was opened with hold preemption, flag the > >> + * request properly so that the priority of the request is bumped once > >> + * it reaches the execlist ports. > >> + */ > >> + if (eb->i915->perf.oa.exclusive_stream->hold_preemption) > >> + eb->request->flags |= I915_REQUEST_FLAGS_PERF; > > Just to reassure myself that this is the behaviour you: > > > > If the exclusive_stream is changed before the request is executed, it is > > likely that we no longer notice the earlier preemption-protection. This > > should not matter because the listener is no longer interested in those > > events? > > -Chris > > > > Yeah, dropping the perf stream before your queries complete and you're > in undefined behavior territory. Then this should do what you want, and if I break it in future, I have to fix it ;) Hmm, this definitely merits some selftest/igt as I am very liable to break it. Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
