Quoting Daniel Vetter (2019-08-14 18:20:53) > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 10:15:23AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Now that dma_fence_signal always takes the spinlock to flush the > > cb_list, simply take the spinlock and call dma_fence_signal_locked() to > > avoid code repetition. > > > > Suggested-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> > > Hm, I think this largely defeats the point of having the lockless signal > enabling trickery in dma_fence. Maybe that part isn't needed by anyone, > but feels like a thing that needs a notch more thought. And if we need it, > maybe a bit more cleanup. You mean dma_fence_enable_sw_signaling(). The only user appears to be to flush fences, which is actually the intent of always notifying the signal cb. By always doing the callbacks, we can avoid installing the interrupt and completely saturating CPUs with irqs, instead doing a batch in a leisurely timer callback if not flushed naturally. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
