On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 06:41:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 15:31 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > The thing is now that you're not expected to hold these locks for a > > long > > time - if you need to synchronously stall while holding a lock > > performance > > will go down the gutters anyway. And since most current > > gpus/co-processors > > still can't really preempt fairness isn't that high a priority, > > either. > > So we didn't think too much about that. > > Yeah but you're proposing a new synchronization primitive for the core > kernel.. all such 'fun' details need to be considered, not only those > few that bear on the one usecase.
Which bares the question, what other use cases are there? -- Steve _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
