On Fri, 05 Oct 2012, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> By using round_jiffies() we can align the wakeup of our worker to the
> nearest second in order to batch wakeups and reduce system load, which
> is useful for unimportant coarse tasks like our retire_requests.
Is there a reason not to just use INIT_DELAYED_WORK_DEFERRABLE()? Come
to think of it, same with deferrable timer in patch 1/2.
> Suggested-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan at linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan at linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 8e05d53..706f481 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -2084,6 +2084,11 @@ i915_gem_next_request_seqno(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring)
> return ring->outstanding_lazy_request;
> }
>
> +static unsigned long round_jiffies_delay(unsigned long delay)
> +{
> + return round_jiffies_relative(delay) - jiffies;
> +}
Hmm, is it possible that would end up negative if someone reuses that
with a small delay?
An observation: there's a bunch of calls elsewhere in kernel to
queue_delayed_work() with the delay wrapped in round_jiffies() or
round_jiffies_relative(). The former at least gets queued within
expected tolerance (though likely not on full second), but how could the
code using the latter ever work?!
I guess a function like yours could be useful in generic code.
BR,
Jani.
> +
> int
> i915_add_request(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring,
> struct drm_file *file,
> @@ -2155,7 +2160,8 @@ i915_add_request(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring,
> }
> if (was_empty) {
> queue_delayed_work(dev_priv->wq,
> - &dev_priv->mm.retire_work, HZ);
> + &dev_priv->mm.retire_work,
> + round_jiffies_delay(HZ));
> intel_mark_busy(dev_priv->dev);
> }
> }
> @@ -2346,7 +2352,8 @@ i915_gem_retire_work_handler(struct work_struct *work)
>
> /* Come back later if the device is busy... */
> if (!mutex_trylock(&dev->struct_mutex)) {
> - queue_delayed_work(dev_priv->wq, &dev_priv->mm.retire_work, HZ);
> + queue_delayed_work(dev_priv->wq, &dev_priv->mm.retire_work,
> + round_jiffies_delay(HZ));
> return;
> }
>
> @@ -2364,7 +2371,8 @@ i915_gem_retire_work_handler(struct work_struct *work)
> }
>
> if (!dev_priv->mm.suspended && !idle)
> - queue_delayed_work(dev_priv->wq, &dev_priv->mm.retire_work, HZ);
> + queue_delayed_work(dev_priv->wq, &dev_priv->mm.retire_work,
> + round_jiffies_delay(HZ));
> if (idle)
> intel_mark_idle(dev);
>
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
