Chris Wilson <[email protected]> writes: > Put back the preemption counters lost in commit 22b7a426bbe1 > ("drm/i915/execlists: Preempt-to-busy") so that our selftests that > assert no preemption took place continue to function. > > v2: But a timeslice is only a "soft" preemption! > > Fixes: 22b7a426bbe1 ("drm/i915/execlists: Preempt-to-busy") > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c > index 19ce8eb5e5c9..270ef417dd1a 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c > @@ -921,6 +921,11 @@ enable_timeslice(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) > return last && need_timeslice(engine, last); > } > > +static void record_preemption(struct intel_engine_execlists *execlists) > +{ > + (void)I915_SELFTEST_ONLY(execlists->preempt_hang.count++); > +} > + > static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) > { > struct intel_engine_execlists * const execlists = &engine->execlists; > @@ -989,6 +994,8 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs > *engine) > last->fence.seqno, > last->sched.attr.priority, > execlists->queue_priority_hint); > + record_preemption(execlists); > + > /* > * Don't let the RING_HEAD advance past the breadcrumb > * as we unwind (and until we resubmit) so that we do > -- > 2.22.0 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
