On 19/04/2017 11:09, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:41:43AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h index f43a22ae955b..200f2cf393b2 100644 --- a/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h +++ b/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h @@ -395,6 +395,8 @@ typedef struct drm_i915_irq_wait {/* Query whether DRM_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER2 supports user defined execution * priorities and the driver will attempt to execute batches in priority order. + * The initial priority for each batch is supplied by the context and is + * controlled via I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY. */ #define I915_PARAM_HAS_SCHEDULER 41 #define I915_PARAM_HUC_STATUS 42 @@ -1318,6 +1320,7 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_context_param { #define I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_GTT_SIZE 0x3 #define I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_NO_ERROR_CAPTURE 0x4 #define I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_BANNABLE 0x5 +#define I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_PRIORITY 0x6Grr. Forgot to add min/max defines. #define I915_CONTEXT_MAX_USER_PRIORITY 1023 /* inclusive */ #define I915_CONTEXT_DEFAULT_PRIORITY 0 #define I915_CONTEXT_MIN_USER_PRIORITY -1023 /* inclusive */
Yes, and use these in context get param, including the default instead of the zero I think.
Or should it be I915_CONTEXT_PRIORITY_MAX_USER etc?
Priority last somehow looks better to me since like that it is clearly a separate category from param names. But I don't mind either way.
Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
