Am 11.09.2017 um 17:22 schrieb Christian König:
Am 11.09.2017 um 17:13 schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
Op 11-09-17 om 16:45 schreef Christian König:
Am 11.09.2017 um 15:56 schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
Op 11-09-17 om 14:53 schreef Christian König:
Am 10.09.2017 um 09:30 schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
[SNIP]
To be honest that looks rather ugly to me for not much gain.
Additional to that we loose the optimization I've stolen from the
wait function.
Right now your version does exactly the same as
reservation_object_get_fences_rcu,
but with a reservation_object_list instead of a fence array.
Well then please take a closer look again:
for (i = 0; i < src_list->shared_count; ++i) {
struct dma_fence *fence;
fence = rcu_dereference(src_list->shared[i]);
if (test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT,
&fence->flags))
continue;
if (!dma_fence_get_rcu(fence)) {
kfree(dst_list);
src_list = rcu_dereference(src->fence);
goto retry;
}
if (dma_fence_is_signaled(fence)) {
dma_fence_put(fence);
continue;
}
dst_list->shared[dst_list->shared_count++] = fence;
}
We only take fences into the new reservation list when they aren't
already signaled.
This can't be added to reservation_object_get_fences_rcu() because
that would break VM handling on radeon and amdgpu.
What we could do is adding a function to return all fences (including
the exclusive one) as reservation_object_list() and use that in both the
wait as well as the copy function.
Regards,
Christian.
Regards,
Christian.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
