Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-10-10 16:22:25) > On 10/10/2019 00:19, Chris Wilson wrote: > > From: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Introduce a new perf_ioctl command to change the OA configuration of the > > active stream. This allows the OA stream to be reconfigured between > > batch buffers, giving greater flexibility in sampling. We inject a > > request into the OA context to reconfigure the stream asynchronously on > > the GPU in between and ordered with execbuffer calls. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > So much simpler :) Indeed, it all came together into a much more coherent story. > > --- > > /** > > * i915_perf_ioctl - support ioctl() usage with i915 perf stream FDs > > * @stream: An i915 perf stream > > @@ -2879,6 +2901,8 @@ static long i915_perf_ioctl_locked(struct i915_perf_stream *stream, > > case I915_PERF_IOCTL_DISABLE: > > i915_perf_disable_locked(stream); > > return 0; > > + case I915_PERF_IOCTL_CONFIG: > > + return i915_perf_config_locked(stream, arg); > > For REMOVE_CONFIG we passed a pointer to an u64, not sure whether we > should reuse the same pattern here? Aiui, the user creates oa-config handles, and/or queries them. If we are simpler talking handles that fit inside unsigned long (so assume u32) then I don't see the harm in passing an id rather than a pointer. The alternative is this takes an uuid string? Or you want to always use u64 handles? I guess you will have a better idea what works better after playing around with userspace. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
