On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 10:51:53AM +0100, John Harrison wrote:
> On 14/10/2016 13:18, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >@@ -338,11 +345,10 @@ i915_gem_get_tiling(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> > case I915_TILING_Y:
> > args->swizzle_mode = dev_priv->mm.bit_6_swizzle_y;
> > b
On 14/10/2016 13:18, Chris Wilson wrote:
We want to hide the latency of releasing objects and their backing
storage from the submission, so we move the actual free to a worker.
This allows us to switch to struct_mutex freeing of the object in the
next patch.
Furthermore, if we know that the obje
On ti, 2016-10-18 at 12:19 +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> With the change from John,
>
"Now that the change from John was done" would have been better
wording.
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
___
Int
On pe, 2016-10-14 at 13:18 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> We want to hide the latency of releasing objects and their backing
> storage from the submission, so we move the actual free to a worker.
> This allows us to switch to struct_mutex freeing of the object in the
> next patch.
>
> Furthermore, i
We want to hide the latency of releasing objects and their backing
storage from the submission, so we move the actual free to a worker.
This allows us to switch to struct_mutex freeing of the object in the
next patch.
Furthermore, if we know that the object we are dereferencing remains valid
for t
