Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-11-20 16:05:24) > > On 20/11/2019 15:21, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Since retirement may be running in a worker on another CPU, it may be > > skipped in the local intel_gt_wait_for_idle(). To ensure the state is > > consistent for our sanity checks upon load, serialise with the remote > > retirer by waiting on the timeline->mutex. > > What may get skipped? Timeline might have been removed from the active > list before wait_for_idle? But why would that be bad for this code? It > just splits part of the retirement to two paths - wait_for_idle still... > oops wait.. indeed.. wait_for_idle used to guarantee retirement and now > it can be ongoing. Does wait_for_idle needs to always wait or you think > case-by-case basis is better? My thought was case-by-case, as intel_gt_pm_wait_for_idle() picks up the slack for when we truly need it. Here, my intent was to avoid waiting longer than was strictly necessarily. I probably should have mentioned that as the standby. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
