On 2023-07-04 09:02:07 [+0100], Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > Lets make it a two patch series and then see. First patch to see if we can > really get away without the top level preempt_disable, and then second patch > to see if we can get away with preemptible short sleeps too. oki. > I guess on RT the top priority is consistent scheduling latency and not so > much potential UI latency in some edge cases? Saying that because if waiting I would says, yes. If you do RT and you provide some kind of GUI then you prefer to meet your deadlines for your RT load over some UI latency. > on the hw reset is made preemptible, _in theory_ it can prolong the reset > completion (as observed by i915), and so result in more UI glitching than it > normally would. Could be a theoretical point only because it requires both > CPU over-subscribe and GPU hangs. It could also easily be that the reset > path is only one path, and not so interesting one even, which can cause this > on RT. I see. > Regards, > > Tvrtko Sebastian
