On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:15:39 +0200, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:41:28PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > On Wed, 30 May 2012 20:21:33 +0200 > > Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > I've tested this by pimping the i-g-t test some more and also checking > > > the polling behviour of the wait_rendering_timeout ioctl versus what > > > busy_ioctl returns. > > > > > > Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 61 > > > ++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > > > 1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > > index d2eaa00..521e294 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > > @@ -2000,6 +2000,31 @@ i915_gem_object_wait_rendering(struct > > > drm_i915_gem_object *obj) > > > } > > > > > > /** > > > + * Ensures that an object will eventually get non-busy by flushing any > > > required > > > + * write domains, emitting any outstanding lazy request and retiring and > > > + * completed requests. The unplug moniker is stolen from the linux block > > > layer. > > > + */ > > I'd prefer something like, "unbusy" but whatever. > > Considered and I've thought that's not a proper word. And unbusy isn't > quite correct either, because this only ensures that the object will get > unbusy eventually, if you keep on calling this function (due to the > retire_request in there). And _eventually_unbusy_object sounds horrible to > me. I admit that unplug is a misdenomer, too, but I lack good ideas.
i965_gem_object_check_retired()? Just about anything would be better than unplug.
pgpa7dorwrqKj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
