Op 20-09-16 om 14:51 schreef Chris Wilson: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:58:19PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: >> While user space has control over the scheduling priority of its page >> flipping thread, the corresponding work the driver schedules for MMIO >> flips always runs from the generic system workqueue which has some >> scheduling overhead due it being CPU bound. This would hinder an >> application that wants more stringent guarantees over flip timing (to >> avoid missing a flip at the next frame count). >> >> Fix this by scheduling the work from the unbound system workqueue >> which provides for minimal scheduling latency. >> >> v2: >> - Use an unbound workqueue instead of a high-prio one. (Tvrtko, Chris) >> v3: >> - Use the system unbound wq instead of a dedicated one. (Maarten) >> >> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97775 >> Testcase: igt/kms_cursor_legacy >> CC: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> CC: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com> >> CC: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.d...@intel.com> >> Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> (v1) > We violate the unbound_wq rules no worse than the ordinary system_wq, > and this brings mmioflip on a par with nonblocking atomic modesets, so > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > -Chris > Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com>
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
