On ma, 2016-08-22 at 09:03 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > This is a golden oldie! We can shave a couple of locked instructions for > about 10% of the per-object overhead by not taking an extra kref whilst > reserving objects for an execbuf. Due to lock management this is safe, > as we cannot lose the original object reference without the lock. > Equally, because this relies on the heavy BKL^W struct_mutex, it is also > likely to be only a temporary optimisation until we have fine grained > locking. (That's what we said 5 years ago, so there's probably another > 10 years before we get around to finer grained locking!) > Should we sprinkle a couple of lockdep_assert_held for documentation? Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
