On 17/11/2020 13:25, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-11-17 12:59:44)
On 17/11/2020 11:30, Chris Wilson wrote:
+ if (show_request) {
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(rq, rn, &tl->requests, link)
+ show_request(m, rq,
+ i915_request_is_active(rq) ? " E" :
+ i915_request_is_ready(rq) ? " Q" :
+ " U");
Can we get some consistency between the category counts and flags.
s/count/queued/ -> Q
Hmm, if you are sure. Q would then not match with the engine info.
Sure? Not really. What do we have there? You mean "!/*/+/-" flags? Or
"E/Q/V" from intel_execlists_show_requests? Right, 'Q' there means
runnable and it doesn't show queued at all. Yes, why not change everything.
Still favouring count over queued; I think count indicates more clearly
that it is the superset, but queued may imply it excludes ready and
definitely sounds like it should not include inflight.
I am okay with that.
ready -> R (also matches with term runnable)
active -> E ? hmmm E is consistent with the engine info dump.
Not ideal but perhaps every bit of more consistency is good.
Not sold yet, but not happy with the current flags either.
If we go with 'R' for ready, we should also update engine info.
Okay we seem to have plenty of options.
U or Q - queued/unready
R or Q - ready/queued (to backend) (Rv/Qv for virtual?)
E or R, or I - executing/running/in-flight
Q -> R -> E
U -> R -> E
U -> Q -> E/R/I
U -> R -> E/I
I don't know.. either one as long as all places use the same.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
