Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-01-03 09:48:46)
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2019, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Frequently, we use intel_runtime_pm_get/_put around a small block.
> > Formalise that usage by providing a macro to define such a block with an
> > automatic closure to scope the intel_runtime_pm wakeref to that block,
> > i.e. macro abuse smelling of python.
>
> I'm divided on this one. I'm not known to shy away from macro
> abuse... It does add yet another i915-ism to the learning curve. And you
> seem to have to add some variable initializations because the compiler
> is no longer able to figure it all out itself. What does this do to code
> size?
Honestly, it's not kind to the compiler. But I found the with() {} a
reasonable improvement to keep persisting with looking for a second
opinion.
add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 32/5 up/down: 626/-165 (461)
Function old new delta
check_whitelist_across_reset 729 791 +62
igt_mmap_offset_exhaustion 1070 1122 +52
i915_sseu_status 1102 1137 +35
...
igt_ctx_exec.cold 355 354 -1
i915_gem_shrinker_scan 332 329 -3
guc_log_capture_logs 1172 1169 -3
i915_energy_uJ 289 266 -23
gen8_ppgtt_insert_4lvl 2678 2543 -135
Total: Before=1885408, After=1885869, chg +0.02%
I am not even going to ask why the compiler changed its mind over
gen8_ppgtt_insert_4lvl when it doesn't even use the macro.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
