Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/5] drm/i915: Downgrade NEWCLIENT to non-preemptive

2019-05-17 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 17/05/2019 14:30, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-05-17 13:55:48) On 15/05/2019 14:00, Chris Wilson wrote: Commit 1413b2bc0717 ("drm/i915: Trim NEWCLIENT boosting") had the intended consequence of not allowing a sequence of work that merely crossed into a new engine the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/5] drm/i915: Downgrade NEWCLIENT to non-preemptive

2019-05-17 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-05-17 13:55:48) > > On 15/05/2019 14:00, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Commit 1413b2bc0717 ("drm/i915: Trim NEWCLIENT boosting") had the > > intended consequence of not allowing a sequence of work that merely > > crossed into a new engine the privilege to be promoted to

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/5] drm/i915: Downgrade NEWCLIENT to non-preemptive

2019-05-17 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 15/05/2019 14:00, Chris Wilson wrote: Commit 1413b2bc0717 ("drm/i915: Trim NEWCLIENT boosting") had the intended consequence of not allowing a sequence of work that merely crossed into a new engine the privilege to be promoted to NEWCLIENT What do you mean with crossed into a new engine?

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/5] drm/i915: Downgrade NEWCLIENT to non-preemptive

2019-05-15 Thread Chris Wilson
Commit 1413b2bc0717 ("drm/i915: Trim NEWCLIENT boosting") had the intended consequence of not allowing a sequence of work that merely crossed into a new engine the privilege to be promoted to NEWCLIENT status. It also had the unintended consequence of actually making NEWCLIENT effective on heavily