+ Jason/Ken for Mesa feedback (please look at Bugzilla discussion) Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-11-26 11:32:42) > > On 25/11/2019 16:27, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Based on a sampling of a number of benchmarks across platforms, by > > default opt for a more much lenient timeout so that we should not > > adversely affect existing clients. > > > > 640ms ought to be enough for anyone. > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112169 > > Fixes: 3a7a92aba8fb ("drm/i915/execlists: Force preemption") > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Eero Tamminen <eero.t.tamminen@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Dmitry Rogozhkin <dmitry.v.rogozhkin@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Kconfig.profile | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Kconfig.profile b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Kconfig.profile > > index 1799537a3228..c280b6ae38eb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Kconfig.profile > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Kconfig.profile > > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ config DRM_I915_HEARTBEAT_INTERVAL > > > > config DRM_I915_PREEMPT_TIMEOUT > > int "Preempt timeout (ms, jiffy granularity)" > > - default 100 # milliseconds > > + default 640 # milliseconds Maybe just bump to 1000 ms for a good measure. 640 ms is already a radical stall. Regards, Joonas > > help > > How long to wait (in milliseconds) for a preemption event to occur > > when submitting a new context via execlists. If the current context > > > > If it's needed it's needed. > > Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > Regards, > > Tvrtko > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
