Op 22-09-15 om 11:10 schreef Daniel Vetter: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:43:52PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> The vblank timestamp ringbuffer only has two entries, so if the >> vblank->count is incremented by an even number readers may end up seeing >> the new vblank timestamp alongside the old vblank counter value. >> >> Fix the problem by storing the vblank counter in a ringbuffer as well, >> and always increment the ringbuffer "slot" by one when storing a new >> timestamp+counter pair. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Imo if we bother with this we might as well just switch over to using > full-blown seqlocks. They internally use a two-stage update which means > race-free even with just one copy of the data we protect. Also more > standardized to boot. > > Series looks good otherwise, I'll wait for Maarten to r-b it and then pull > it in. > R-b for 1-10. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
