Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 11/14] drm/i915: Engine busy time tracking

2017-07-19 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-07-19 10:12:33) > > On 18/07/2017 16:19, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-07-18 15:36:15) > >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin > >> > >> Track total time requests have been executing on the hardware. > >> > >> To make this cheap it is hidden behind a static b

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 11/14] drm/i915: Engine busy time tracking

2017-07-19 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 18/07/2017 16:19, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-07-18 15:36:15) From: Tvrtko Ursulin Track total time requests have been executing on the hardware. To make this cheap it is hidden behind a static branch with the intention that it is only enabled when there is a consumer

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 11/14] drm/i915: Engine busy time tracking

2017-07-18 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-07-18 15:36:15) > From: Tvrtko Ursulin > > Track total time requests have been executing on the hardware. > > To make this cheap it is hidden behind a static branch with the > intention that it is only enabled when there is a consumer > listening. This means that in

[Intel-gfx] [RFC 11/14] drm/i915: Engine busy time tracking

2017-07-18 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
From: Tvrtko Ursulin Track total time requests have been executing on the hardware. To make this cheap it is hidden behind a static branch with the intention that it is only enabled when there is a consumer listening. This means that in the default off case the total cost of the tracking is just