On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:10:28AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> Would canceling the idle worker be to expensive?
It wasn't as much as that, I was trying to keep runtime suspend simple.
In that the GT takes the wakelock to prevent suspend as required and
not have the knowledge about all the
On 21/07/16 12:04, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:28:02AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 21/07/16 11:10, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 21/07/16 07:57, Chris Wilson wrote:
During the idle-worker we disable the
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:28:02AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 21/07/16 11:10, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>
> >>On 21/07/16 07:57, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>During the idle-worker we disable the hangcheck and so kick any
On 21/07/16 11:10, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 21/07/16 07:57, Chris Wilson wrote:
During the idle-worker we disable the hangcheck and so kick any waiters
that should have been completed (since the GPU is now idle). Unlike the
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 21/07/16 07:57, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >During the idle-worker we disable the hangcheck and so kick any waiters
> >that should have been completed (since the GPU is now idle). Unlike the
> >hangcheck, we do not take any care to
On 21/07/16 07:57, Chris Wilson wrote:
During the idle-worker we disable the hangcheck and so kick any waiters
that should have been completed (since the GPU is now idle). Unlike the
hangcheck, we do not take any care to avoid the race between the irq
handler and ourselves, and so it is
