On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 04:39:32PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2015-06-17 4:52 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > These busy bits are locked higher up. In fact I want to migrate that > > lock to a spinlock, which has implications here. I didn't see anything > > that mandated using a mutex for fbc, right? > > I didn't understand your idea. You want to replace the whole FBC mutex > for a spinlock? Why? I want to replace the frontbuffer mutex with a spinlock. You are inserting a mutex under my intended spinlock, which blows my idea of trying to speed up the normal operations. > Please notice that we have dev_priv->fbc.busy_bits and also > dev_priv->fb_tracking.busy_bits. The FBC busy bits are only handled in > the intel_fbc.c functions. So maybe you want the spilock around the > fb_tracking ones? That wouldn't require changing the FBC mutex to a > spinlock, and it could be done today. Somehow I need to avoid the mutex here, so kicking off the fbc enable/disable needs to be lockless (or spinlocked at most). Of course, if that is not practical, I will just have to live with not converting the higher mutex into the spinlock. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
