On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:50:05PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:14:28PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:55:50PM +0200, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > According to BSpec the entire MI_DISPLAY_FLIP packet must be contained > > > in a single cacheline. Make sure that happens. > > > > > > v2: Use intel_ring_begin_cacheline_safe() > > > > Ugh, no. Let's not make intel_ring_begin() any more complicated and just > > introduce a function to align the current head in the ringbuffer to a > > cacheline. Especially with such an interface that is hard to get right. > > This doesn't make intel_ring_begin() itself more complicated, but I > guess you meant that the new special version is too complicated for > your taste? Yes. But it also raises the question of whether I want to use intel_ring_begin() or intel_ring_begin_safe() everytime I touch the ring. The slight loss of efficiency is well worth the clarity of saying: ring_align(); ring_begin() for those special cases. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
