On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 10:08 AM Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 03/03/2023 14:48, Rob Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 1:58 AM Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 03/03/2023 03:21, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 03:53:37PM -0800, Rob Clark wrote:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
missing some wording here...
v2: rebase
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c index 7503dcb9043b..44491e7e214c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c @@ -97,6 +97,25 @@ static bool i915_fence_enable_signaling(struct dma_fence *fence) return i915_request_enable_breadcrumb(to_request(fence)); }
+static void i915_fence_set_deadline(struct dma_fence *fence, ktime_t deadline) +{
- struct i915_request *rq = to_request(fence);
- if (i915_request_completed(rq))
return;- if (i915_request_started(rq))
return;why do we skip the boost if already started? don't we want to boost the freq anyway?
I'd wager Rob is just copying the current i915 wait boost logic.
Yup, and probably incorrectly.. Matt reported fewer boosts/sec compared to your RFC, this could be the bug
Hm, there I have preserved this same !i915_request_started logic.
Presumably it's not just fewer boosts but lower performance. How is he setting the deadline? Somehow from clFlush or so?
Regards,
Tvrtko
P.S. Take note that I did not post the latest version of my RFC. The one where I fix the fence chain and array misses you pointed out. I did not think it would be worthwhile given no universal love for it, but if people are testing with it more widely that I was aware perhaps I should.
Yep, that would be great. We're interested in it for ChromeOS. Please Cc me on the series when you send it.