https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98172
--- Comment #28 from Suzuki, Shinji <shinji.suz...@gmail.com> ---
Yes. I agree with you that we can do without per-sync-object if we
allow all waiters enter fence_finish() freely.
With that said, per-sync-object mutex has another benefit of
potentially reducing lock contention among waiters on differing sync
objects and with other mesa components that deals with shared
resources. To be fair I also have to mention that ctx->Shared.Mutex is
touched everywhere that trying to optimize in this particular context
only may not make much sense and adding mutex certainly has associated
overhead. Overall, I vote +1 on your strategy if free execution of
fence_finish() is to be allowed.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:21 AM, <bugzilla-dae...@freedesktop.org> wrote:
> Comment # 27 on bug 98172 from Michel Dänzer
>
> Note that if we allow concurrent fence_finish calls, I don't think we need a
> per-sync-object mutex.
>
> ________________________________
> You are receiving this mail because:
>
> You reported the bug.
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
