<snip>
@@ -1756,15 +1796,119 @@ static int guc_context_alloc(struct intel_context *ce)
return lrc_alloc(ce, ce->engine);
}
+static void guc_context_set_prio(struct intel_guc *guc,
+ struct intel_context *ce,
+ u8 prio)
+{
+ u32 action[] = {
+ INTEL_GUC_ACTION_SET_CONTEXT_PRIORITY,
+ ce->guc_id,
+ prio,
+ };
+
+ GEM_BUG_ON(prio < GUC_CLIENT_PRIORITY_KMD_HIGH ||
+ prio > GUC_CLIENT_PRIORITY_NORMAL);
+
+ if (ce->guc_prio == prio || submission_disabled(guc) ||
+ !context_registered(ce))
+ return;
+
+ guc_submission_send_busy_loop(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action), 0, true);
+
+ ce->guc_prio = prio;
+ trace_intel_context_set_prio(ce);
+}
+
+static inline u8 map_i915_prio_to_guc_prio(int prio)
+{
+ if (prio == I915_PRIORITY_NORMAL)
+ return GUC_CLIENT_PRIORITY_KMD_NORMAL;
+ else if (prio < I915_PRIORITY_NORMAL)
+ return GUC_CLIENT_PRIORITY_NORMAL;
+ else if (prio != I915_PRIORITY_BARRIER)
Shouldn't this be I915_PRIORITY_UNPREEMPTABLE?
No, I915_PRIORITY_UNPREEMPTABLE is an execlists only concept.
then we need a
/* we don't expect umpreemptable submissions with the GuC */
GEM_BUG_ON(prio == I915_PRIORITY_UNPREEMPTABLE)
or something, because that prio level would be assigned incorrectly
otherwise.
Daniele
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
