On ma, 2016-09-19 at 18:35 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > On ke, 2016-09-14 at 07:52 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > +static int reserve_global_seqno(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > > {
> > > - struct i915_gem_timeline *tl = &dev_priv->gt.global_timeline;
> > > + struct i915_gem_timeline *tl = &i915->gt.global_timeline;
> > > + u32 next_seqno = atomic_read(&tl->next_seqno);
> > >
> > > - /* reserve 0 for non-seqno */
> > > - if (unlikely(tl->next_seqno == 0)) {
> >
> > Meh, do not hide the ++i915->gt.active_requests in if (unlikely(...)).
>
> *shudder* it doesn't get any better by removing unlikely!
>
Well, it gets twice as bad by adding it, though :P
My below recommendation would be preferred by lifting the increment
before the if ().
> > >
> > > + if (unlikely(next_seqno + ++i915->gt.active_requests <= next_seqno)) {
> > > int ret;
> > >
> >
> > Why not if (likely(next_seqno + active_requests > next_seqno))
> > > > return 0;
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
