On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:45:34 -0700 Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 09:07:35 +0100, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 22:55:26 -0700, Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> wrote: > > > These patches are pretty raw as I'm hoping to get some comments before > > > working to hard too clean them up. The goal is GPU fairness for clients > > > running on i915. > > > > The biggest danger I see is that num_outstanding is only decremented > > in retire_requests, which under the right circumstances (a single hog or > > a plurarity) will cause latencies of over 1s. Also this unnecessarily > > penalises benchmarks, i.e. a single active client. > > Just using wait_request interface would require less code and not have > that issue. I must be missing something simple, but I didn't see an easy way to use that interface to do what I want. Instead of outstanding requests, I'd need to start tracking per fd seqnos (yes it's done elsewhere, but didn't seem much different to me). Can you explain what I'm missing? Ben _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
