On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 09:55:51PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 01:44:23PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > Furthermore, the actually pinning (pin count increment) should be > > unnecessary, but I assume you were just trying to save me some typing. > > Yes, the pin-count adjustments should be unnecessary - but not a huge > burden, and I was thinking it may help in the future as we may want to > explicitly hold the pin until move-to-active for all objects. That > future being where we strive to reduce hold times on struct_mutex. My grand plan is that pinning-to-mark-an-object-reserved-for-execbuf will be replaced by per-object-lock-acquired. By using the owner-tracking of ww mutexes we'll even get a "you have this already acquired" notice for free. And then we obviously need to hold the ww mutex lock until we're done updating the state, so past the move-to-active. But I haven't worked out a concrete plan for how to get there yet, so dunno whether sprinkling more pinnning around is a good idea or not. Just wanted to drop my 2 uninformed cents here ;-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
