Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-04-09 11:40:08) > > On 09/04/2018 11:27, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-04-09 11:17:04) > >> > >> On 09/04/2018 10:25, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>> Downside being that we either then use atomic64 throughout or we mix > >>> atomic32/atomic64 knowing that we're on x86. (I feel like someone else > >>> must have solved this problem in a much neater way, before they went to > >>> per-cpu stats ;) > >> > >> Is the winky implying you know who and where? :) We have three potential > >> solutions now, even for if the winky is suggesting something. > > > > Nah, just that atomic/locked counters are so old hat. Not sure if there > > remain any good examples for hotpath counters that remain applicable to > > our code. > > Leave it as is then for now and improve if we discover it is not good > enough? I did have an ulterior motive in that the cmpxchg did resolve one issue that irked me with the two counters being updated out of sync. Minor, minor glitches :) I don't have a strong preference either way. These instructions on the submit are not likely to stand out, as compared to the biggest fish of ksoftirqd, execlists_schedule() and execlists_dequeue(). -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
