On 12/05/16 11:25, Chris Wilson wrote:
In order to reduce the workload of the caller, we do not want to
actually have to retire requests of others when checking the status of
this object.
Wrt the subject, and from wait ioctl as well.
Also i915_gem_object_sync / i915_gem_execbuffer_move_to_gpu path
(execbuf) looks like it could still do the upto retiring so that isn't
only moving the thing around?
And in general, commit does not say who was impacted by this and how much?
Regards,
Tvrtko
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 8 +-------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index 8439867..474c027 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -3069,14 +3069,8 @@ i915_gem_object_flush_active(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
if (req == NULL)
continue;
- if (list_empty(&req->list))
- goto retire;
-
- if (i915_gem_request_completed(req, true)) {
- __i915_gem_request_retire__upto(req);
-retire:
+ if (i915_gem_request_completed(req, true))
i915_gem_object_retire__read(obj, i);
- }
}
return 0;
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
