Re: [PATCH 3/6] drm/i915: Split the batch pool by engine

From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] drm/i915: Split the batch pool by engine
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:33:49 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5509B6FD.60903@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150318172747.GG10812@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>

On 03/18/2015 05:27 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 04:51:58PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> On 03/09/2015 09:55 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_batch_pool.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_batch_pool.c
>>> index 21f3356cc0ab..1287abf55b84 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_batch_pool.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_batch_pool.c
>>> @@ -96,8 +96,9 @@ i915_gem_batch_pool_get(struct i915_gem_batch_pool *pool,
>>>
>>>   	list_for_each_entry_safe(tmp, next,
>>>   				 &pool->cache_list, batch_pool_list) {
>>> +		/* The batches are strictly LRU ordered */
>>>   		if (tmp->active)
>>> -			continue;
>>> +			break;
>>
>> This hunk would be a better fit for 2/6, correct?
>
> No. The explanation is given by the comment + changelog.

I don't see this patch introducing this strict LRU ordering, rather it 
was there before this patch. Am I missing something? If I am not, then I 
see this hunk as a better fit with "Tidy batch pool logic", than "Split 
the batch pool by engine".

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx