On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 11:12:59AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 03:45:09PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > In the debate as to whether the second read of active->request is > > ordered after the dependent reads of the first read of active->request, > > just give in and throw a smp_rmb() in there so that ordering of loads is > > assured. > > > > v2: Explain the manual smp_rmb() > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > r-b confirmed. It's still fishy that we are implying an SMP effect where we need to mandate the local processor order (that being the order evaluation of request = *active; engine = *request; *active). The two *active are already ordered across SMP, so we are only concered about this cpu. :| -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
