On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:27:43AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 28/10/16 11:10, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:42:22AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 27/10/16 17:10, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>>The breadcrumbs are about to be used from within IRQ context sections, > >>>therefore we need to employ the irqsafe spinlock variants. > >>> > >>>(This is split out of the defer global seqno allocation patch due to > >>>realisation that we need a more complete conversion if we want to defer > >>>request submission even further.) > > > >[snip] > > > >>Assuming I got the above right and you agree to change it: > > > >You made me go and reduce them to _bh as appropriate anyway!!! > > Hm, but can't enable signalling be called with irqs disabled when > fences are exported? Yes, but that supercedes the spin_lock_bh, so we can just call spin_lock() in enabling_signaling as we can assert that we will always be called with irqs disabled here (due to spin_lock_irqsafe(fence->lock) in the callpath). -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
