On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 02:46:25PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > 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? I've assumed you'd runtime patch the vtables or something like that. And I didn't see any other less crazy way to ... -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
