On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:47:10PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2015-06-17 17:25 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > 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. > > As far as I can see, fb_tracking.lock is not held when we call > intel_fbc_flush and intel_fbc_invalidate. So your change could be > possible now. Hmm, right. My bad, I should have checked the extents of the lock first! Thanks, -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
