On 24/05/2018 16:33, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-05-24 16:04:47)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
In the string tracepoint representation we ended up with the engine
sandwiched between context hardware id and context fence id.
Move the two pieces of context data together and consolidate for
redability using the format of ctx=hw_id:fence_context_id.
Grr, bring backs my memory of ctx being the most important!
I knew it! :))
In order of segregation, I think of it as device+context as being the
outer container (a user isn't meant to escape their context). The
timelines and engines they use are all contained within their context.
If I move ctx before engine, then seqno is left to hang after the engine.
And honestly I forgot all my arguments in this topic. By the virtue of
exhaustion I am prepared to give in. :))
But what we call ctx here isn't really context, but timeline; how about
if we switch to the fence=%llx:%d representation we've mostly settled on
for the debug messages?
For the ctx and seqno pair? But here we have the additional issue of
hw_id. I think context is better than timeline at this level.
Or you mean keep explicit hw_id and join ctx and seqno into fence=%llx:%d?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx