On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Maarten Lankhorst < [email protected]> wrote:
> Op 25-02-15 om 15:11 schreef Emil Velikov: > > On 24 February 2015 at 09:01, Maarten Lankhorst > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Only add wrapped bo's and bo's that have been exported through flink or > dma-buf. > >> This avoids a lock in the common case, and decreases traversal needed > for importing > >> a dma-buf or flink. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> nouveau/nouveau.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ > >> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/nouveau/nouveau.c b/nouveau/nouveau.c > >> index 1c723b9..d411523 100644 > >> --- a/nouveau/nouveau.c > >> +++ b/nouveau/nouveau.c > >> @@ -349,8 +349,8 @@ nouveau_bo_del(struct nouveau_bo *bo) > >> struct nouveau_bo_priv *nvbo = nouveau_bo(bo); > >> struct drm_gem_close req = { bo->handle }; > >> > >> - pthread_mutex_lock(&nvdev->lock); > >> - if (nvbo->name) { > >> + if (nvbo->head.next) { > >> + pthread_mutex_lock(&nvdev->lock); > >> if (atomic_read(&nvbo->refcnt) == 0) { > >> DRMLISTDEL(&nvbo->head); > >> /* > >> @@ -365,8 +365,6 @@ nouveau_bo_del(struct nouveau_bo *bo) > >> } > >> pthread_mutex_unlock(&nvdev->lock); > >> } else { > >> - DRMLISTDEL(&nvbo->head); > >> - pthread_mutex_unlock(&nvdev->lock); > >> drmIoctl(bo->device->fd, DRM_IOCTL_GEM_CLOSE, &req); > >> } > >> if (bo->map) > >> @@ -379,7 +377,6 @@ nouveau_bo_new(struct nouveau_device *dev, uint32_t > flags, uint32_t align, > >> uint64_t size, union nouveau_bo_config *config, > >> struct nouveau_bo **pbo) > >> { > >> - struct nouveau_device_priv *nvdev = nouveau_device(dev); > >> struct nouveau_bo_priv *nvbo = calloc(1, sizeof(*nvbo)); > >> struct nouveau_bo *bo = &nvbo->base; > >> int ret; > >> @@ -397,10 +394,6 @@ nouveau_bo_new(struct nouveau_device *dev, > uint32_t flags, uint32_t align, > >> return ret; > >> } > >> > >> - pthread_mutex_lock(&nvdev->lock); > >> - DRMLISTADD(&nvbo->head, &nvdev->bo_list); > >> - pthread_mutex_unlock(&nvdev->lock); > >> - > >> *pbo = bo; > >> return 0; > >> } > >> @@ -457,6 +450,18 @@ nouveau_bo_wrap_locked(struct nouveau_device *dev, > uint32_t handle, > >> return -ENOMEM; > >> } > >> > >> +static void > >> +nouveau_bo_make_global(struct nouveau_bo_priv *nvbo) > >> +{ > >> + if (!nvbo->head.next) { > >> + struct nouveau_device_priv *nvdev = > nouveau_device(nvbo->base.device); > >> + pthread_mutex_lock(&nvdev->lock); > >> + if (!nvbo->head.next) > I guess the bo_make_global call is not particularly sensitive, so > removing's fine with me. > I would be worried about the duplicated check. It seems like a "smart" compiler could cache the value of "nvbo->head.next" (unless marked as volatile), rendering the second if() useless. If the field is marked volatile, then of course, this does not apply. -Patrick > > ~Maarten > _______________________________________________ > Nouveau mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau >
_______________________________________________ Nouveau mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau
