On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:19:37PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:43:30PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:06:45AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > >
> > > On 21/02/2017 09:37, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:22:12AM +0200, Imre
On 21/02/2017 14:13, Imre Deak wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:11:27PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 21/02/2017 12:43, Imre Deak wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:06:45AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 21/02/2017 09:37, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:22:12AM +0200, Imr
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:11:27PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 21/02/2017 12:43, Imre Deak wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:06:45AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>
> >>On 21/02/2017 09:37, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:22:12AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Mo
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:43:30PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:06:45AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >
> > On 21/02/2017 09:37, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > >On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:22:12AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > >>On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:05:33PM +, Chris Wilson
On 21/02/2017 12:43, Imre Deak wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:06:45AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 21/02/2017 09:37, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:22:12AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:05:33PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
So that our preempt-off per
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:06:45AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 21/02/2017 09:37, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:22:12AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> >>On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:05:33PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>So that our preempt-off period doesn't grow completely u
On 21/02/2017 09:37, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:22:12AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:05:33PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
So that our preempt-off period doesn't grow completely unchecked, or do
we need that 34ms loop?
Yes, that's at least how I underst
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:22:12AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:05:33PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > So that our preempt-off period doesn't grow completely unchecked, or do
> > we need that 34ms loop?
>
> Yes, that's at least how I understand it. Scheduling away is what l
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:05:33PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:29:44PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > After
> > commit 2c7d0602c815277f7cb7c932b091288710d8aba7
> > Author: Imre Deak
> > Date: Mon Dec 5 18:27:37 2016 +0200
> >
> > drm/i915/gen9: Fix PCODE polling dur
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:29:44PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> After
> commit 2c7d0602c815277f7cb7c932b091288710d8aba7
> Author: Imre Deak
> Date: Mon Dec 5 18:27:37 2016 +0200
>
> drm/i915/gen9: Fix PCODE polling during CDCLK change notification
>
> there is still one report of the CDCLK-ch
After
commit 2c7d0602c815277f7cb7c932b091288710d8aba7
Author: Imre Deak
Date: Mon Dec 5 18:27:37 2016 +0200
drm/i915/gen9: Fix PCODE polling during CDCLK change notification
there is still one report of the CDCLK-change request timing out on a
KBL machine, see the Reference link. On that m
11 matches
Mail list logo