On 06/05/16 16:17, Dave Gordon wrote:
On 29/04/16 16:45, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
One late comment:
On 27/04/16 19:03, Dave Gordon wrote:
Rather than wait to see whether more space becomes available in the GuC
submission workqueue, we can just return -EAGAIN and let the caller try
again in a li
On 29/04/16 16:17, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 27/04/16 19:03, Dave Gordon wrote:
Rather than wait to see whether more space becomes available in the GuC
submission workqueue, we can just return -EAGAIN and let the caller try
again in a little while. This gets rid of an uninterruptable sleep in
th
On 29/04/16 16:45, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
One late comment:
On 27/04/16 19:03, Dave Gordon wrote:
Rather than wait to see whether more space becomes available in the GuC
submission workqueue, we can just return -EAGAIN and let the caller try
again in a little while. This gets rid of an uninterr
One late comment:
On 27/04/16 19:03, Dave Gordon wrote:
Rather than wait to see whether more space becomes available in the GuC
submission workqueue, we can just return -EAGAIN and let the caller try
again in a little while. This gets rid of an uninterruptable sleep in
the polling code :)
We'l
On 27/04/16 19:03, Dave Gordon wrote:
Rather than wait to see whether more space becomes available in the GuC
submission workqueue, we can just return -EAGAIN and let the caller try
again in a little while. This gets rid of an uninterruptable sleep in
the polling code :)
We'll also add a counte
Rather than wait to see whether more space becomes available in the GuC
submission workqueue, we can just return -EAGAIN and let the caller try
again in a little while. This gets rid of an uninterruptable sleep in
the polling code :)
We'll also add a counter to the GuC client statistics, to see ho
