Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 5/7] drm/i915/execlists: Direct submit onto idle engines

2018-05-08 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 08/05/2018 11:40, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-05-08 11:23:09) On 07/05/2018 14:57, Chris Wilson wrote: Bypass using the tasklet to submit the first request to HW, as the tasklet may be deferred unto ksoftirqd and at a minimum will add in excess of 10us (and maybe tens

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 5/7] drm/i915/execlists: Direct submit onto idle engines

2018-05-08 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-05-08 11:23:09) > > On 07/05/2018 14:57, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Bypass using the tasklet to submit the first request to HW, as the > > tasklet may be deferred unto ksoftirqd and at a minimum will add in > > excess of 10us (and maybe tens of milliseconds) to our

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 5/7] drm/i915/execlists: Direct submit onto idle engines

2018-05-08 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 07/05/2018 14:57, Chris Wilson wrote: Bypass using the tasklet to submit the first request to HW, as the tasklet may be deferred unto ksoftirqd and at a minimum will add in excess of 10us (and maybe tens of milliseconds) to our execution latency. This latency reduction is most notable when

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 5/7] drm/i915/execlists: Direct submit onto idle engines

2018-05-07 Thread Chris Wilson
Bypass using the tasklet to submit the first request to HW, as the tasklet may be deferred unto ksoftirqd and at a minimum will add in excess of 10us (and maybe tens of milliseconds) to our execution latency. This latency reduction is most notable when execution flows between engines. v2: Beware