[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/13] drm/i915: Pass i915_sched_node around internally

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-05-07 13:12:05)
> 
> On 03/05/2019 12:52, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > To simplify the next patch, update bump_priority and schedule to accept
> > the internal i915_sched_ndoe directly and not expect a request pointer.
> > 
> > add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 2/1 up/down: 8/-15 (-7)
> > Function                                     old     new   delta
> > i915_schedule_bump_priority                  109     113      +4
> > i915_schedule                                 50      54      +4
> > __i915_schedule                              922     907     -15
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c | 33 +++++++++++++++------------
> >   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
> > index 4a95cf2201a7..380cb7343a10 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
> > @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static void kick_submission(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, int prio)
> >       tasklet_hi_schedule(&engine->execlists.tasklet);
> >   }
> >   
> > -static void __i915_schedule(struct i915_request *rq,
> > +static void __i915_schedule(struct i915_sched_node *rq,
> 
> Can you not use rq for sched node, but perhaps node?

We use node later on. I kept with rq to try and keep the patch small,
and stick to the current semantics. We could reuse node... That looks
like it is semantically clean.
-Chris