Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-11-20 11:39:00)
>
> On 19/11/2019 14:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-11-19 14:15:49)
> >>
> >> On 18/11/2019 23:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> The general concept was that intel_timeline.active_count was locked by
> >>> the intel_timeline.mutex.
On 19/11/2019 14:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-11-19 14:15:49)
On 18/11/2019 23:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
The general concept was that intel_timeline.active_count was locked by
the intel_timeline.mutex. The exception was for power management, where
the engine->kernel_cont
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-11-19 14:15:49)
>
> On 18/11/2019 23:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > The general concept was that intel_timeline.active_count was locked by
> > the intel_timeline.mutex. The exception was for power management, where
> > the engine->kernel_context->timeline could be manipul
On 18/11/2019 23:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
The general concept was that intel_timeline.active_count was locked by
the intel_timeline.mutex. The exception was for power management, where
the engine->kernel_context->timeline could be manipulated under the
global wakeref.mutex.
This was quite solid,
The general concept was that intel_timeline.active_count was locked by
the intel_timeline.mutex. The exception was for power management, where
the engine->kernel_context->timeline could be manipulated under the
global wakeref.mutex.
This was quite solid, as we always manipulated the timeline only
