Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-03-19 15:11:49) > > On 19/03/2020 15:02, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-03-19 14:31:36) > >> > >> On 19/03/2020 09:19, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>> + if (has_sentinel(last, rq)) > >>> goto done; > >> > >> I am only confused by can_merge_rq saying two sentinel requests can be > >> merged together: > >> > >> if (unlikely((i915_request_flags(prev) ^ i915_request_flags(next)) & > >> (BIT(I915_FENCE_FLAG_NOPREEMPT) | > >> BIT(I915_FENCE_FLAG_SENTINEL)))) > >> return false; > >> > >> What am I missing? > > > > I thought it was fine to coalesce consecutive sentinels within the > > context into one. > > > > Except you're thinking about gvt, and not my usage :| > > Sentinel is like "only one context in elsp at a time", right? > This is what GVT wants. GVT wants one request. For my purpose, it was just one context. > And for the active barrier we want single elsp and not > coalesced with non-sentinel from the same context. But sentinels are > kernel context, so should be fine. Although it still may be clearer to > make then not coalesce as well. The frequency should of non-barrier operations along the kernel context should not be high enough that we gain anything by coalescing mixed barrier/non-barrier request streams. I hope. On the other hand we do want to coalesce NOPREEMPT streams. Oh well, my hope for pulling it all in one bitops seems to be fading away. First though, I have to answer the question of how I broke persistence. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
