[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for RFC/RFT drm/i915/oa: Drop aging-tail

2019-02-19 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: RFC/RFT drm/i915/oa: Drop aging-tail URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/56889/ State : success == Summary == CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5630 -> Patchwork_12253 Summary --- **SUCCESS**

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Use time based guilty context banning

2019-02-19 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2019-02-19 11:22:32) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reset.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reset.c > > index 1911e00d2581..bae88a4ea924 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reset.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reset.c > > @@ -59,24 +59,29 @@ static

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Use time based guilty context banning

2019-02-19 Thread Mika Kuoppala
Chris Wilson writes: > Currently, we accumulate each time a context hangs the GPU, offset > against the number of requests it submits, and if that score exceeds a > certain threshold, we ban that context from submitting any more requests > (cancelling any work in flight). In contrast, we use a si

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: warning for RFC/RFT drm/i915/oa: Drop aging-tail

2019-02-19 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: RFC/RFT drm/i915/oa: Drop aging-tail URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/56889/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim sparse origin/drm-tip Sparse version: v0.5.2 Commit: RFC/RFT drm/i915/oa: Drop aging-tail -O:drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c:1422:15: war

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for RFC/RFT drm/i915/oa: Drop aging-tail

2019-02-19 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: RFC/RFT drm/i915/oa: Drop aging-tail URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/56889/ State : warning == Summary == $ dim checkpatch origin/drm-tip 5d1d7354476d RFC/RFT drm/i915/oa: Drop aging-tail -:523: CHECK:MULTIPLE_ASSIGNMENTS: multiple assignments should

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/7] drm/i915/perf: rework aging tail workaround

2019-02-19 Thread Lionel Landwerlin
On 19/02/2019 10:36, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-02-19 10:31:52) On 19/02/2019 09:18, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-02-18 18:35:28) We're about to introduce an options to open the perf stream, giving the user ability to configure how often it wants

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] RFC/RFT drm/i915/oa: Drop aging-tail

2019-02-19 Thread Lionel Landwerlin
On 19/02/2019 10:28, Chris Wilson wrote: Switch to using coherent reads that are serialised with the register read to avoid the memory latency problem in favour over an arbitrary delay. The only zeroes seen during testing on HSW+ have been from configuration changes that do not update (therefore

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/7] drm/i915/perf: rework aging tail workaround

2019-02-19 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-02-19 10:31:52) > On 19/02/2019 09:18, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-02-18 18:35:28) > >> We're about to introduce an options to open the perf stream, giving > >> the user ability to configure how often it wants the kernel to poll > >> the O

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 08/46] drm/i915/execlists: Suppress mere WAIT preemption

2019-02-19 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Matthew Auld (2019-02-19 10:22:57) > On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 13:05, Chris Wilson wrote: > > +static struct i915_request *dummy_request(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) > > +{ > > + struct i915_request *rq; > > + > > + rq = kmalloc(sizeof(*rq), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO); > > +

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/7] drm/i915/perf: rework aging tail workaround

2019-02-19 Thread Lionel Landwerlin
On 19/02/2019 09:18, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-02-18 18:35:28) We're about to introduce an options to open the perf stream, giving the user ability to configure how often it wants the kernel to poll the OA registers for available data. Right now the workaround against

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] RFC/RFT drm/i915/oa: Drop aging-tail

2019-02-19 Thread Chris Wilson
Switch to using coherent reads that are serialised with the register read to avoid the memory latency problem in favour over an arbitrary delay. The only zeroes seen during testing on HSW+ have been from configuration changes that do not update (therefore were truly zero entries and should be skipp

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 08/46] drm/i915/execlists: Suppress mere WAIT preemption

2019-02-19 Thread Matthew Auld
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 13:05, Chris Wilson wrote: > > WAIT is occasionally suppressed by virtue of preempted requests being > promoted to NEWCLIENT if they have not all ready received that boost. > Make this consistent for all WAIT boosts that they are not allowed to > preempt executing contexts an

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Include reminders about leaving no holes in uAPI enums

2019-02-19 Thread Joonas Lahtinen
Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-02-18 11:46:28) > We don't want to pre-reserve any holes in our uAPI for that is a sign of > nefarious and hidden activity. Add a reminder about our uAPI > expectations to encourage good practice when adding new defines/enums. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson > Cc: Joona

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/7] drm/i915/perf: rework aging tail workaround

2019-02-19 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-02-18 18:35:28) > We're about to introduce an options to open the perf stream, giving > the user ability to configure how often it wants the kernel to poll > the OA registers for available data. > > Right now the workaround against the OA tail pointer race condition

<    1   2