Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-11-15 12:45:52) > > On 14/11/2019 22:57, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Our callers fall into two categories, those passing timeout=0 who just > > want to flush request retirements and those passing a timeout that need > > to wait for submission completion (e.g. intel_gt_wait_for_idle()). > > Currently, we only wait for a snapshot of timelines at the start of the > > wait (but there was an expection that new requests would cause timelines > > expectation? exception? expectation > > to appear at the end). However, our callers, such as > > intel_gt_wait_for_idle() before suspend, do require us to wait for the > > power management requests emitted by retirement as well. If we don't, > > then it takes an extra second or two for the background worker to flush > > the queue and mark the GT as idle. > > So with this change wait_for_idle waits for the kernel context to get > retired as well. And you say that's faster by a second or two? Which > flush gets so much slower, I mean from where, if we don't wait here? intel_gt_pm_wait_for_idle() (so i915_gem_suspend, and selftests that exercise those same paths) then has to wait for the background retire worker to flush the final requests and drop the wakeref. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
