On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 06:05:42PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 07:41:34PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > Also looks quite a bit like my ring notify doohicky from: > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2014-June/047623.html > > Indeed, fences look similar :) > > > Except I kept the list in the driver so you would need to do only one > > get_seqno() per irq. Also if the list would be sorted (which it wasn't > > in my patch) it would prevent signalling the fences out of order. But > > maybe that's not really a problem for anyone. > > > > Hmm, so if the out of order thing isn't a problem maybe use the wait > > queue still but replace the wake_up() with __wake_up() so that the seqno > > can be passed in as the key. That's assuming people care about > > optimizing the seqno reads. > > No, we don't care about plain seqno reads - they're a cached read. I guess I should clarify - after a single irq coherency barrier, they're cheap. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
