Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-03-01 11:48:25)
>
> On 01/03/2019 11:05, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > @@ -69,6 +70,10 @@ bool __i915_sched_node_add_dependency(struct
> > i915_sched_node *node,
> > dep->signaler = signal;
> > dep->flags = flags;
> >
> > + /* Keep track of whether anyone on this chain has a semaphore
> > */
> > + if (signal->semaphore && !node_started(signal))
> > + node->semaphore |= signal->semaphore << 1;
>
> Maybe I am confused.. this moves the bit flag to the left. Can't it fall
> off the end and we end up with zero after a deep enough chain?
Yup. I was working on the likelihood of that happening being small
enough to below the level of care :)
The semaphore being 64 requests ago and still not retired? That's like
igt levels of stress :)
Hmm, at one point I was using the history to determine whether this
request itself had a semaphore, but that's gone. So we can just use
if (signal->semaphore && !node_started(signal))
node->semaphore |= signal->semaphore;
> > @@ -74,6 +75,8 @@ struct i915_sched_node {
> > struct list_head waiters_list; /* those after us, they depend upon us
> > */
> > struct list_head link;
> > struct i915_sched_attr attr;
> > + unsigned long semaphore;
> > +#define I915_SCHED_HAS_SEMAPHORE BIT(0)
>
> unsigned int?
Everything is/will-be aligned to a pointer, and this gave us a deeper
chain :)
However, the chain is moot, so unsigned int is fine. And we can call it
flags if we aren't keeping the chain.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
