On 20/05/2021 09:35, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 19/05/2021 19:23, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:16 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
On 18/05/2021 10:40, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 18/05/2021 10:16, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 10:09, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
I was
> Well if it becomes a problem fixing the debugfs "clients" file and
> making it sysfs shouldn't be much of a problem later on.
Why not to try using something in terms of perf / opensnoop or bpf
to do the work. Should be optimal enough.
ie.
http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2014-07-25/opensnoop-fo
021 11:23 AM
To: Tvrtko Ursulin
Cc: Daniel Stone ; jhubb...@nvidia.com ; nouv...@lists.freedesktop.org
; Intel Graphics Development ; Maling list - DRI
developers ; Simon Ser ; Koenig, Christian
; arit...@nvidia.com ; Nieto, David M
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/7] Per client engine busyness
On
lopment
> ; Maling list - DRI developers
> ; Simon Ser ; Koenig,
> Christian ; arit...@nvidia.com
> ; Nieto, David M
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/7] Per client engine busyness
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:16 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
On 19/05/2021 19:23, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:16 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
On 18/05/2021 10:40, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 18/05/2021 10:16, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 10:09, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
I was just wondering if stat(2) and a chrdev majo
;
Nieto, David M
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/7] Per client engine busyness
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:16 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
>
>
> On 18/05/2021 10:40, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >
> > On 18/05/2021 10:16, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >&
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:16 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
>
>
> On 18/05/2021 10:40, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >
> > On 18/05/2021 10:16, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 10:09, Tvrtko Ursulin
> >> wrote:
> >>> I was just wondering if stat(2) and a chrdev major check would
