On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 03:47:34PM +0000, Dave Gordon wrote: > On 30/11/15 10:06, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > >On 29/11/15 08:48, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>Limit busywaiting only to the request currently being processed by the > >>GPU. If the request is not currently being processed by the GPU, there > >>is a very low likelihood of it being completed within the 2 microsecond > >>spin timeout and so we will just be wasting CPU cycles. > >> > >>v2: Check for logical inversion when rebasing - we were incorrectly > >>checking for this request being active, and instead busywaiting for > >>when the GPU was not yet processing the request of interest. > >> > >>v3: Try another colour for the seqno names. > >>v4: Another colour for the function names. > > Adding a field in the request to track the sequence number of the > previous request isn't ideal when considering the scheduler and > preemption. But we've got a separate batch-in-progress sequence > number in the hardware status page (also for use by TDR to check > which batch is currently running), so you could use that. Then the > check is simply As demonstrated TDR doesn't need it, and the GPU scheduler has to fix up the seqno anyway to maintain retirement order of the request list. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
