On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 01:07:29PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 19/05/16 14:13, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 01:50:51PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> > >>On 19/05/16 12:32, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>>The queue only ever contains at most one item and has no special flags. > >>>It is just a very simple wrapper around the system-wq - a complication > >>>with no benefits. > >> > >>How much time do we take in the reset case - is it acceptable to do > >>that work from the system wq? > > > >Hangcheck is a handful of register reads and some pointer chasing per > >engine. (There is a seqno_barrier in there which may be reasonably > >expensive but not a cpu hog). The error capture is run from the > >hangcheck context - and that is no small task (especially if we ever > >apply the object compression patches), but for safety we need to call > >stop_machine() so it really doesn't matter at that point. > > I don't see a stop_machine? So until there is one, using the system > wq is a bit impolite in the error capture state, agreed? It's in the queue to fix the odd oops we get during capture. You'd be happy with system_long_wq in the meantime? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
