Keith Packard wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 18:10 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: > > >> I haven't looked into the code for a while, but isn't it possible to use >> a spinlock (_bh) for ring protection? >> > > Because we may have to wait for the hardware to drain the ring, it > wouldn't be a good idea to hold a spinlock. In the worst case, with the > hardware locked up, you will have wedged the entire machine. > > Ok. >> Or perhaps even the hardware ring lock bit? Or are you protecting other >> things with the ring mutex as well? >> > > It can still take a long time to wait for the hardware, so we want to > allow other tasks to run. > > Using the separate high-priority ring will allow us to insert commands > into that ring and have it automatically interrupt the main ring > execution, all without needing to wait for access to the main ring. > > Yes, that sounds like the best solution.
/Thomas ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
