On ti, 2016-09-20 at 09:29 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Our low-level wait routine has evolved from our generic wait interface
> that handled unlocked, RPS boosting, waits with time tracking. If we
> push our GEM fence tracking to use reservation_objects (required for
> handling multiple timelines), we lose the ability to pass the required
> information down to i915_wait_request(). However, if we push the extra
> functionality from i915_wait_request() to the individual callsites
> (i915_gem_object_wait_rendering and i915_gem_wait_ioctl) that make use
> of those extras, we can both simplify our low level wait and prepare for
> extending the GEM interface for use of reservation_objects.
> * This causes a temporary regression in the use of wait-ioctl as a busy
> query -- it will fail to report immediately, but go into
> i915_wait_request() before timing out.
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Already provided review comments in the previous series, no changelog
and at least the two first were not accounted for.
Open Source Technology Center
Intel-gfx mailing list