On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 04:05:19PM +0800, Zhao Yakui wrote: > On Mon, 2014-04-14 at 01:22 -0600, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > You're still using atomic_t for no real good reason. > > gen8_dispatch_bsd_ring is always called with the dev->struct_mutex lock > > held, so there's really no reason for it. > > If the struct_mutex is used in the gen8_dispatch_bsd_ring, I can remove > the atomic_t. > It seems that the struct_mutex is a big lock and it is used very > frequently(i915_gem.c, i915_dma.c and so on). In my point it is a little > heavier than the atomic_t if one counter is increased and returned. > > If you think that the mutex is better than atomic, I will follow your > advice. You are already holding the struct_mutex whenever we touch the ring and execbuffer. Even in a fine-grained world, there will still be a mutex around all operations that touch the rings. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
