Am 17.07.2018 um 09:46 schrieb Michel Dänzer: > On 2018-07-17 09:33 AM, Christian König wrote: >> Am 17.07.2018 um 09:26 schrieb Michel Dänzer: >>> On 2018-07-17 08:50 AM, Christian König wrote: >>>> Am 16.07.2018 um 18:05 schrieb Michel Dänzer: >>>>> On 2018-07-13 08:47 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >>>>> [SNIP] >>>>> Other opinions? >>>> I understand the reason why Marek wants to do this, but I agree that >>>> this is a little bit dangerous if used incorrectly. >>>> >>>> On the other hand I don't see any other way to sanely handle it either. >>> Sanely handle what exactly? :) I still haven't seen any description of >>> an actual problem, other than "the handle is stored in the hash table". >> Well the problem is that it's not "the handle" but rather "all handles" >> which are now stored in the hash table. >> >> To begin with that is quite a bunch of wasted memory, not talking about >> the extra CPU cycles. > All that should be needed is one struct list_head per BO, 16 bytes on > 64-bit. +malloc overhead and that for *every* BO the application/driver allocated. The last time I looked we could easily have a few thousands of that (but not in the same CS). So I would guess that the wasted memory can easily be in the lower kb range, compared to adding just a flag that we never going to import the handle again. Christian.
