| Message ID | 20180627201304.15817-2-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes: > If we have more interrupts pending (because we know there are more > breadcrumb signals before the completion), then we do not need to > trigger an irq_seqno_barrier or even wakeup the task on this interrupt > as there will be another. To allow some margin of error (we are trying > to work around incoherent seqno after all), we wakeup the breadcrumb > before the target as well as on the target. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com> Thanks for splitting this out. Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > index 56a080bc4498..55aba89adfb1 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c > @@ -1182,7 +1182,8 @@ static void notify_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) > > tsk = wait->tsk; > } else { > - if (engine->irq_seqno_barrier) { > + if (engine->irq_seqno_barrier && > + i915_seqno_passed(seqno, wait->seqno - 1)) { > set_bit(ENGINE_IRQ_BREADCRUMB, > &engine->irq_posted); > tsk = wait->tsk; > -- > 2.18.0
Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2018-06-28 09:06:37) > Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes: > > > If we have more interrupts pending (because we know there are more > > breadcrumb signals before the completion), then we do not need to > > trigger an irq_seqno_barrier or even wakeup the task on this interrupt > > as there will be another. To allow some margin of error (we are trying > > to work around incoherent seqno after all), we wakeup the breadcrumb > > before the target as well as on the target. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com> > > Thanks for splitting this out. > > Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com> And applied, thanks for the review. Fingers crossed as always when touching interrupt handling. -Chris
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c index 56a080bc4498..55aba89adfb1 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c @@ -1182,7 +1182,8 @@ static void notify_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) tsk = wait->tsk; } else { - if (engine->irq_seqno_barrier) { + if (engine->irq_seqno_barrier && + i915_seqno_passed(seqno, wait->seqno - 1)) { set_bit(ENGINE_IRQ_BREADCRUMB, &engine->irq_posted); tsk = wait->tsk;
If we have more interrupts pending (because we know there are more breadcrumb signals before the completion), then we do not need to trigger an irq_seqno_barrier or even wakeup the task on this interrupt as there will be another. To allow some margin of error (we are trying to work around incoherent seqno after all), we wakeup the breadcrumb before the target as well as on the target. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)