On 05/05/2017 14:51, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 02:37:41PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 05/05/2017 14:32, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 02:19:07PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 03/05/2017 12:37, Chris Wilson wrote:
struct intel_engine_cs {
@@ -367,6 +373,7 @@ struct intel_engine_cs {
/* Execlists */
struct tasklet_struct irq_tasklet;
+ struct execlist_priolist default_priolist;
struct execlist_port {
struct drm_i915_gem_request *request_count;
#define EXECLIST_COUNT_BITS 2
Just a small bikeshed to consider. Having switched to
I915_PRIORITY_NORMAL, do we have a better name for default_priolist? I
still prefer default_priolist over normal_priolist. Go back to
I915_PRIORITY_DEFAULT?
default_priolist is fine I think since it is dual purpose. Primary
purpose to avoid allocations as you said.
Although I am still a bit dejected how some userspace could decide
one day to send everything at I915_PRIORITY_NORMAL - n, in order to
use I915_PRIORITY_NORMAL as the high prio not requiring
cap_sys_admin, and in doing so completely defeat the atomic kmalloc
avoidance. :(
Should we just bite the bullet and install a kmem_cache here?
It didn't solve the kmalloc error handling, but it does at least give us
a freelist. There is a reasonable argument that as soon as userspace
starts using non-default priorities, we may see many different levels
justifying allocating a whole slab upfront.
Actually my argument is pants since allocations only happen with
"opening" a new priority level. So I think leave it as it is until there
is a need.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
