Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-08 Thread Jani Nikula
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014, Daniel Vetter wrote: > We've lost the +1 required for correct timeouts in > > commit 5ed0bdf21a85d78e04f89f15ccf227562177cbd9 > Author: Thomas Gleixner > Date: Wed Jul 16 21:05:06 2014 + > > drm: i915: Use nsec based interfaces > > Use ktime_get_raw_ns() and get

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-05 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:35:44PM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:16 PM, John Stultz wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Vetter > >> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM, John Stultz > >>> wr

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-04 Thread John Stultz
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:16 PM, John Stultz wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM, John Stultz wrote: Sigh. So you're going to make me write a separate patch that moves it ov

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-04 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:16 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM, John Stultz wrote: >>> Sigh. So you're going to make me write a separate patch that moves it over? >> >> We've written it already, Imre posted the link to

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-04 Thread John Stultz
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM, John Stultz wrote: >> Sigh. So you're going to make me write a separate patch that moves it over? > > We've written it already, Imre posted the link to the old discussion: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/10/18

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-04 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 11:07:08AM -0800, John Stultz wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:54:13AM -0800, John Stultz wrote: >>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-04 Thread John Stultz
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > We've lost the +1 required for correct timeouts in > > commit 5ed0bdf21a85d78e04f89f15ccf227562177cbd9 > Author: Thomas Gleixner > Date: Wed Jul 16 21:05:06 2014 + > > drm: i915: Use nsec based interfaces > > Use ktime_get_raw_n

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-04 Thread John Stultz
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 11:07:08AM -0800, John Stultz wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:54:13AM -0800, John Stultz wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Chris Wilson >> >>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-04 Thread shuang . he
Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact: shuang...@intel.com) -Summary- Platform Delta drm-intel-nightly Series Applied PNV 364/364

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-04 Thread Daniel Vetter
We've lost the +1 required for correct timeouts in commit 5ed0bdf21a85d78e04f89f15ccf227562177cbd9 Author: Thomas Gleixner Date: Wed Jul 16 21:05:06 2014 + drm: i915: Use nsec based interfaces Use ktime_get_raw_ns() and get rid of the back and forth timespec conversions.

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-04 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 11:07:08AM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:54:13AM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Chris Wilson > >> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:36:22PM +0100, Dani

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-03 Thread John Stultz
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:54:13AM -0800, John Stultz wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Chris Wilson >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:36:22PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> >> +static inline unsigned long nsecs_to_jiffies_ti

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-03 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:54:13AM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:36:22PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> +static inline unsigned long nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const u64 m) > >> +{ > >> + u64 usecs = div_u64(m + 9

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-03 Thread Imre Deak
On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 10:22 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:54:13AM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Chris Wilson > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:36:22PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > >> +static inline unsigned long nsecs_to_jiff

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-03 Thread John Stultz
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:36:22PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> +static inline unsigned long nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const u64 m) >> +{ >> + u64 usecs = div_u64(m + 999, 1000); >> + unsigned long j = usecs_to_jiffies(usecs); >> + >>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-03 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:54:13AM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:36:22PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> +static inline unsigned long nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const u64 m) > >> +{ > >> + u64 usecs = div_u64(m + 9

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-02 Thread shuang . he
Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact: shuang...@intel.com) -Summary- Platform Delta drm-intel-nightly Series Applied PNV -2 364/364 3

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-02 Thread shuang . he
Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact: shuang...@intel.com) -Summary- Platform Delta drm-intel-nightly Series Applied PNV 364/364

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-02 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 04:36:22PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > We've lost the +1 required for correct timeouts in > > commit 5ed0bdf21a85d78e04f89f15ccf227562177cbd9 > Author: Thomas Gleixner > Date: Wed Jul 16 21:05:06 2014 + > > drm: i915: Use nsec based interfaces > > Use kti

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-02 Thread Daniel Vetter
We've lost the +1 required for correct timeouts in commit 5ed0bdf21a85d78e04f89f15ccf227562177cbd9 Author: Thomas Gleixner Date: Wed Jul 16 21:05:06 2014 + drm: i915: Use nsec based interfaces Use ktime_get_raw_ns() and get rid of the back and forth timespec conversions.

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

2014-12-02 Thread Daniel Vetter
We've lost the +1 required for correct timeouts in commit 5ed0bdf21a85d78e04f89f15ccf227562177cbd9 Author: Thomas Gleixner Date: Wed Jul 16 21:05:06 2014 + drm: i915: Use nsec based interfaces Use ktime_get_raw_ns() and get rid of the back and forth timespec conversions.