On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 09:52 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > In a synchronous setup, we may retire the last request before we > complete allocating the next request. As the last request is retired, we > queue a timer to mark the device as idle, and promptly have to execute > ad cancel that timer once we complete allocating the request and need to > keep the device awake. If we rearrange the mark_busy() to occur before > we retire the previous request, we can skip this ping-pong. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
<SNIP> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c > @@ -265,6 +265,13 @@ static int reserve_seqno(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) > > static void unreserve_seqno(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) > { > + if (!--engine->i915->gt.active_requests) { > + GEM_BUG_ON(!engine->i915->gt.awake); > + mod_delayed_work(engine->i915->wq, > + &engine->i915->gt.idle_work, > + msecs_to_jiffies(100)); > + } This function could use a better name, now it seems to tightly tie to seqno only, and idle work is very unexpected. How about just unreserve_engine vs. reserve_engine? Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx