On 10/01/18 02:12, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Paulo Zanoni (2018-01-09 23:23:17)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
Since it is not possible to mask individual engine instances
and they are all permanently unmasked we do not need to do
anything for engine interrupt management.
This scares me as we will more than double our interrupt generation rate
as we have a breadcrumb interrupt after every request, just in case we
need to synchronize with the request. We've been relying on the ability
to mask those interrupts off, as historically we have been able to
saturate cpus with the amount of interrupts we could generate.
-Chris
We do have masks per instance, but they're in gunit and not in the CS.
they're defined in patch 4 of this series:
+#define GEN11_RCS0_RSVD_INTR_MASK _MMIO(0x190090)
+#define GEN11_BCS_RSVD_INTR_MASK _MMIO(0x1900a0)
+#define GEN11_VCS0_VCS1_INTR_MASK _MMIO(0x1900a8)
+#define GEN11_VCS2_VCS3_INTR_MASK _MMIO(0x1900ac)
+#define GEN11_VECS0_VECS1_INTR_MASK _MMIO(0x1900d0)
Each instance gets half of a register for a 16 bits vector. I think
there was some gotcha with the masks being in gunit but can't remember
exactly what. Tvrtko, do you remember anything on this?
Thanks,
Daniele
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
