On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:55:11 +0100, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> A few nitpicks below.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > index 5201f82..2dbf8f7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > @@ -2461,13 +2461,15 @@ i915_gem_object_flush_fence(struct
> > drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> > obj->fenced_gpu_access = false;
> > }
> >
> > + if (obj->last_fenced_seqno &&
> > + ring_passed_seqno(obj->ring, obj->last_fenced_seqno))
> > + obj->last_fenced_seqno = 0;
>
> This only avoids running the request retiring logic. Without this there are a
> few more things to simplify, I think:
Not strictly. We only do i915_wait_request() if changing rings, yet we
want to check if the object has any outstanding fences for an
optimisation later (writing the fence register immediately whenever
possible).
> > if (obj->last_fenced_seqno && pipelined != obj->ring) {
> > - if (!ring_passed_seqno(obj->ring, obj->last_fenced_seqno)) {
> > - ret = i915_wait_request(obj->ring,
> > - obj->last_fenced_seqno);
> > - if (ret)
> > - return ret;
> > - }
> > + ret = i915_wait_request(obj->ring,
> > + obj->last_fenced_seqno);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> >
> > obj->last_fenced_seqno = 0;
>
> Can't we move that (and the other copies) to move_off_active?
No, because the obj may remain active even after the wait.
>
> > @@ -2648,15 +2650,18 @@ i915_gem_object_get_fence(struct
> > drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> > old->last_fenced_seqno);
> > }
>
> Above here is the imo unnecessary clause mentioned in a previous patch.
ECONTEXT?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
