On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 11:27:50PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 09:59:46AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > We can apply the same optimisation tricks as kref_put_mutex() in our > > local equivalent function. However, we have a different locking semantic > > (we unlock ourselves, in kref_put_mutex() the callee unlocks) so that we > > can use the same callbacks for both locked and unlocked kref_put()s and > > so can not simply convert to using kref_put_mutex() directly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I think longterm we want to move to delayed free callbacks (similar to how > fput works) since the locking with dma-buf and all will simply get too > hairy. But for now this is a neat optimization imo, so I have bad memories of delayed free batching up several thousand small bo. *shudder* -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
