On 08/04/16 16:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 02:54:55PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
If we move the release of the GEM request (i.e. decoupling it from the
various lists used for client and context tracking) after it is complete
(either by the GPU retiring the request, or by the caller cancelling the
request), we can remove the requirement that the final unreference of
the GEM request need to be under the struct_mutex.
v2: Execlists as always is badly asymetric and year old patches still
haven't landed to fix it up.
v3: Extracted, rebased and fixed for GuC. (Tvrtko Ursulin)
After you mentioned the unbalanced, the patches I reordered to fix that
are:
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~ickle/linux-2.6/commit/?h=tasklet&id=83dcde26caa26f4113c3e441c3c96c504fd88e13
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~ickle/linux-2.6/commit/?h=tasklet&id=9f386a21d3f28db763102b5c4f97a90bd0dcfd08
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~ickle/linux-2.6/commit/?h=tasklet&id=9afd878e2c9f7825b99dc839c7b5deb553b62e32
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~ickle/linux-2.6/commit/?h=tasklet&id=a842a2b0b7e90148966f35488209c969a9a9da54
Want to send these four as standalone straight away for review then?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
