On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:53:09PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 09:25:22AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 11:03:40AM +0200, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira wrote: > > > This simplifies the code quite a bit compared to iterating over all > > > rings during the ring interrupt. > > > > > > Also, it allows us to drop the mmio_flip spinlock, since the mmio_flip > > > struct is only accessed in two places. The first is when the flip is > > > queued and the other when the mmio writes are done. Since a flip cannot > > > be queued while there is a pending flip, the two paths shouldn't ever > > > run in parallel. We might need to revisit that if support for replacing > > > flips is implemented though. > > > > > > v2: Don't hold dev->struct_mutext while waiting (Chris) > > > > > > v3: Make the wait uninterruptable (Chris) > > Can we actually send singals to kworker threads? Just out of curiosity ... Some, at least. Probably not the system workqueues we use here, but interruptible=false also has the semantics of "no errors. please". Definitely useful here. > > > + WARN_ON(__i915_wait_seqno(ring, seqno, > > > + intel_crtc->reset_counter, > > > + false, NULL, NULL) != 0); > > > > Should probably mention the caveat that this wants RPS boost tweaks, > > which have been posted to the list as well. > > Yeah I guess we don't want to boost here by default (since userspace might > send the pageflip right after having queued the pageflip), but only when > we indeed missed the next vblank. So I guess we should disable the > boosting here and get your pageflip booster in. Can you please > rebase/adapt and Ander could perhaps review? Yes. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
