Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-03 14:58:47) > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 19:40 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Add a tiny per-engine request mempool so that we should always have a > > request available for powermanagement allocations from tricky > > contexts. This reserve is expected to be only used for kernel > > contexts when barriers must be emitted [almost] without fail. > > > > The main consumer for this reserved request is expected to be engine-pm, > > for which we know that there will always be at least the previous pm > > request that we can reuse under mempressure (so there should always be > > a spare request for engine_park()). > > > > This is an alternative to using a comparatively bulky mempool, which > > requires custom handling for both our reserved allocation requirement > > and to protect our TYPESAFE_BY_RCU slab cache. > > This change resolves the issue for me, and being more simple than the > mempool approach, looks still better. Cool. I couldn't decide if mempool was worth it or not. If we needed more than a single slot, definitely, but the impedance mismatch and that the general advice is not to add more mempools suggest no. Thanks, -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
