Hi,
On 14/12/15 11:36, Chris Wilson wrote:
With the introduction of requests, we amplified the number of atomic
refcounted objects we use and update every execbuffer; from none to
several references, and a set of references that need to be changed. We
also introduced interesting side-effects in the order of retiring
requests and objects.
Instead of independently tracking the last request for an object, track
the active objects for each request. The object will reside in the
buffer list of its most recent active request and so we reduce the kref
interchange to a list_move. Now retirements are entirely driven by the
request, dramatically simplifying activity tracking on the object
themselves, and removing the ambiguity between retiring objects and
retiring requests.
All told, less code, simpler and faster, and more extensible.
I get the general idea but it seems unfinished. For example there is no
handling for last_write and last_fence. So as for bisectability
requirement it does not seem appropriate.
I also wanted to suggest splitting out the req->list to link renaming
but see you've already done it in your branch.
I915_BO_ACTIVE_SHIFT is undefined up to and including this patch.
Variable naming conventions for requests is still a mess but whatever.
And I don't like drm_i915_gem_request_active, wouldn't
drm_i915_gem_active_request be better?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
