On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:33:07PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2014-02-21 14:55 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > We currently call intel_mark_idle() too often, as we do so as a > > side-effect of processing the request queue. However, we the calls to > > intel_mark_idle() are expected to be paired with a call to > > intel_mark_busy() (or else we try to idle the hardware by accessing > > registers that are already disabled). Make the idle/busy tracking > > explicit to prevent the multiple calls. > > > > v2: We can drop some of the complexity in __i915_add_request() as > > queue_delayed_work() already behaves as we want (not requeuing the item > > if it is already in the queue) and mark_busy/mark_idle imply that the > > idle task is inactive. > > > > v3: We do still need to cancel the pending idle task so that it is sent > > again after the current busy load completes (not in the middle of it). > > > > Reported-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > Tested-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> (ran the pm_pc8 > test suite on HSW) Queued for -next, thanks for the patch. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
