The presumption was that some time would always elapse between recording
the start and the finish of a context switch. This turns out to be a
regular occurrence and emitting a debug statement superfluous.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
index 8a51c1c3a091..52b84474f93a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
@@ -1307,7 +1307,7 @@ static void reset_active(struct i915_request *rq,
static void st_update_runtime_underflow(struct intel_context *ce, s32 dt)
{
#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_SELFTEST)
- ce->runtime.num_underflow += dt < 0;
+ ce->runtime.num_underflow++;
ce->runtime.max_underflow = max_t(u32, ce->runtime.max_underflow, -dt);
#endif
}
@@ -1324,7 +1324,7 @@ static void intel_context_update_runtime(struct intel_context *ce)
ce->runtime.last = intel_context_get_runtime(ce);
dt = ce->runtime.last - old;
- if (unlikely(dt <= 0)) {
+ if (unlikely(dt < 0)) {
CE_TRACE(ce, "runtime underflow: last=%u, new=%u, delta=%d\n",
old, ce->runtime.last, dt);
st_update_runtime_underflow(ce, dt);
--
2.20.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
