On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 03:34:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:29:23AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:04:22AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > >> Of course, we can also implement the one-shot thing on top of the > > >> above, but it won't really help us reducing the amount of reads on the > > >> "happy case" where we never got the error before. > > > > > > Actually I am tempted to dynamically patch the mmio vfuncs to avoid even > > > the forcewake spinlock when we already hold it. So there won't be any > > > such logic except when enabled by the user. > > > > Should I expect a patch from you, or should I go and write the patch > > based on what we already discussed? > > Imo this is crazy - we have no control over what the compiler does and > when exactly it loads vtable entries, so patching them at runtime would be > an interesting excercise at best. Wtf? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
