1. 25 3月, 2021 1 次提交
  2. 13 1月, 2021 3 次提交
  3. 21 12月, 2020 1 次提交
  4. 10 12月, 2020 1 次提交
  5. 23 6月, 2020 1 次提交
    • J
      drm/i915/params: switch to device specific parameters · 8a25c4be
      Jani Nikula 提交于
      Start using device specific parameters instead of module parameters for
      most things. The module parameters become the immutable initial values
      for i915 parameters. The device specific parameters in i915->params
      start life as a copy of i915_modparams. Any later changes are only
      reflected in the debugfs.
      
      The stragglers are:
      
      * i915.force_probe and i915.modeset. Needed before dev_priv is
        available. This is fine because the parameters are read-only and never
        modified.
      
      * i915.verbose_state_checks. Passing dev_priv to I915_STATE_WARN and
        I915_STATE_WARN_ON would result in massive and ugly churn. This is
        handled by not exposing the parameter via debugfs, and leaving the
        parameter writable in sysfs. This may be fixed up in follow-up work.
      
      * i915.inject_probe_failure. Only makes sense in terms of the module,
        not the device. This is handled by not exposing the parameter via
        debugfs.
      
      v2: Fix uc i915 lookup code (Michał Winiarski)
      
      Cc: Juha-Pekka Heikkilä <juha-pekka.heikkila@intel.com>
      Cc: Venkata Sandeep Dhanalakota <venkata.s.dhanalakota@intel.com>
      Cc: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com>
      Reviewed-by: NRodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
      Acked-by: NMichał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
      Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200618150402.14022-1-jani.nikula@intel.com
      8a25c4be
  6. 08 5月, 2020 1 次提交
    • C
      drm/i915: Remove wait priority boosting · eec39e44
      Chris Wilson 提交于
      Upon waiting a request (when asked), we gave that request a small
      priority boost, not enough for it to cause preemption, but enough for it
      to be scheduled next before all equals. We also used that bit to give
      new clients a small priority boost, similar to FQ_CODEL, such that we
      favoured short interactive tasks ahead of long running streams.
      
      However, this is causing lots of complications with timeslicing where we
      both want to honour the boost and yet ignore it. Those complications
      cause unexpected user behaviour (tasks not being timesliced and run
      concurrently as epxected), and the easiest way to resolve that is to
      remove the boost. Hopefully, we can find a compromise again if we need
      to, but in theory timeslicing itself and future more advanced schedulers
      should give us the interactivity boost we seek.
      
      Testcase: igt/gem_exec_schedule/lateslice
      Signed-off-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
      Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
      Reviewed-by: NTvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
      Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200507152338.7452-3-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
      eec39e44
  7. 07 5月, 2020 1 次提交
  8. 29 4月, 2020 1 次提交
  9. 04 3月, 2020 1 次提交
  10. 21 2月, 2020 1 次提交
  11. 22 12月, 2019 1 次提交
  12. 20 12月, 2019 1 次提交
  13. 18 12月, 2019 1 次提交
  14. 14 12月, 2019 1 次提交
  15. 10 12月, 2019 4 次提交
  16. 08 12月, 2019 1 次提交
  17. 21 11月, 2019 2 次提交
  18. 15 11月, 2019 1 次提交
  19. 29 10月, 2019 1 次提交
  20. 27 10月, 2019 1 次提交
  21. 24 10月, 2019 1 次提交
  22. 18 10月, 2019 2 次提交
  23. 14 8月, 2019 1 次提交
  24. 13 8月, 2019 2 次提交
  25. 12 8月, 2019 1 次提交
  26. 09 8月, 2019 1 次提交
  27. 07 8月, 2019 1 次提交
  28. 06 8月, 2019 1 次提交
  29. 03 8月, 2019 1 次提交
  30. 02 8月, 2019 1 次提交
  31. 25 7月, 2019 1 次提交
  32. 14 7月, 2019 1 次提交