On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:56:43AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 04:09:32AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:17 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > That will hopefully catch which path is consuming too much time > >> > >> This is what I got: > >> > >> restarting timeout[2] (14, 0, 0) > >> restarting timeout[0] (16, 0, 0) > >> restarting timeout[0] (16, 0, 0) > >> restarting timeout[2] (14, 0, 0) > >> restarting timeout[1] (15, 0, 0) > >> restarting timeout[0] (16, 0, 0) > >> restarting timeout[0] (16, 0, 0) > >> restarting timeout[1] (15, 0, 0) > >> restarting timeout[1] (15, 0, 0) > >> restarting timeout[-1] (17, 0, 0) > > > > Suspiciously like we block for an entire vrefresh to submit one batch. > > Hmm, do you mind sending me your complete Xorg.0.log? > > Here you go. Oh, TearFree. That explains it. I plan to fix that up very soon. Thanks, -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
