Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-08-01 18:24:50)
>
> On 30/07/2019 12:21, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > @@ -224,8 +283,15 @@ int i915_active_ref(struct i915_active *ref,
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > - if (!i915_active_request_isset(active))
> > - atomic_inc(&ref->count)
On 30/07/2019 12:21, Chris Wilson wrote:
By placing our idle-barriers in the i915_active fence tree, we expose
those for reuse by other components that are issuing requests along the
kernel_context. Reusing the proto-barrier active_node is perfectly fine
as the new request implies a context-swit
By placing our idle-barriers in the i915_active fence tree, we expose
those for reuse by other components that are issuing requests along the
kernel_context. Reusing the proto-barrier active_node is perfectly fine
as the new request implies a context-switch, and so an opportune point
to run the idl
