On 09/04/2018 11:51, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-04-09 11:40:08)


On 09/04/2018 11:27, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-04-09 11:17:04)

On 09/04/2018 10:25, Chris Wilson wrote:
Downside being that we either then use atomic64 throughout or we mix
atomic32/atomic64 knowing that we're on x86. (I feel like someone else
must have solved this problem in a much neater way, before they went to
per-cpu stats ;)

Is the winky implying you know who and where? :) We have three potential
solutions now, even for if the winky is suggesting something.

Nah, just that atomic/locked counters are so old hat. Not sure if there
remain any good examples for hotpath counters that remain applicable to
our code.

Leave it as is then for now and improve if we discover it is not good
enough?

I did have an ulterior motive in that the cmpxchg did resolve one issue
that irked me with the two counters being updated out of sync. Minor,
minor glitches :)

I don't have a strong preference either way. These instructions on the
submit are not likely to stand out, as compared to the biggest fish of
ksoftirqd, execlists_schedule() and execlists_dequeue().

I could move the queued decrement from submit_notify to backends, right next to runnable++? Then both would be under the engine->timeline->lock so any inconsistencies in readout I'd hope should be dismissable?

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to