Re: [PATCH 01/14] drm/i915/execlists: Record preemption for selftests

[Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>]

Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> 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 <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>

Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>

> ---
>  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
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx