On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 15:39 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 01:29:14 +0200 > Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 14:48 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > This lets us return to userspace more quickly and should improve init > > > and suspend/resume times as well, allowing us to return to userspace > > > sooner. > > > > IMHO this is a good move towards a full command queue based solution for > > kms commands, where eventually we have to think less of concurrency. > > That is if we can queue all the other kms commands too (flip, > > set_plane). But I don't see why that wouldn't be possible. > > > > Btw, why do you have a separate disable and enable queue? > > As opposed to a dedicated work queue for both combined? I had a > separate queue in an earlier patch, but dropped it while debugging some > other stuff. We should bring it back to ensure ordering. That would > remove the need for a few of the syncs, and would also let us queue a > check at the appropriate time on the same queue. Ah, sorry I confused myself. I didn't notice you used the global workqueue. I'm not sure about the ordering guarantees of the global workqueue, but if that's not given then yea a dedicated ordered workqueue would seem better. In any case if this can move towards a more generic command queue solution then it's great. --Imre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
