Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2017-08-18 12:07:20)
>> Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > if (!eb->reloc_cache.vaddr &&
>> > (DBG_FORCE_RELOC == FORCE_GPU_RELOC ||
>> > - !reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu(vma->resv, true))) {
>> > + !reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu(vma->resv, true)) &&
>> > + __intel_engine_can_store_dword(eb->reloc_cache.gen,
>> > + eb->engine->class)) {
>> > const unsigned int gen = eb->reloc_cache.gen;
>>
>> If you lift this to upper scope, you can make the check little
>> shorter. But incase you are avoiding the assignment to the latest,
>> i am not insisting.
>>
>> There is engine in the eb so could you elaborate that
>> do we get by not doig intel_engine_can_store_dword(eb->engine)?
>
> I'm just partial to avoiding the pointer chasing. I want to make sure
> that the compiler/cpu see that we are reusing the gen, and prefer to
> keep the gen that we do use next to its friends inside
> eb->reloc_cache.
Ok.
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
