On 16/12/2019 13:09, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-12-16 12:06:59)
Implementation wise we add a a bunch of files in sysfs like:
# cd /sys/class/drm/card0/clients/
# tree
.
├── 7
│ ├── busy
│ │ ├── 0
Prefer '0' over rcs?
I think so, saves userspace keeping a map of names to class enum. Or
maybe it doesn't, depends. Saves us having to come up with ABI names.
But I think I could be easily convinced either way.
I will post the corresponding patch to intel_gpu_top for reference as well.
The other requirement is that we need to at least prove the sysfs
interface exists in gt. perf_sysfs?
Quick list,
- check igt_spin_t responses (pretty much verbatim of perf_pmu.c)
- check the client name is correct around fd passing
- check interactions with ctx->engines[]
Yep, I know it will be needed. But haven't been bothering yet since the
series has been in a hopeless mode for what, two years or so. I forgot
to name it RFC this time round.. :)
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
