From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Subject: Re: force wake reference counting (another try)
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:56:03 -0700
Message-ID: <yunr597pfx8.fsf@aiko.keithp.com>
References: <1302570079-17032-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1bdc18$k6h5tu@fmsmga002.fm.intel.com>
	<20110412163022.GA12791@snipes.kumite>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0282441436=="
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from keithp.com (home.keithp.com [63.227.221.253])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 159539E773
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110412163022.GA12791@snipes.kumite>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

--===============0282441436==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:30:22 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote:

> I am going to spend at least a day tracking down, and hopefully fixing
> warnings if you agree with my next statement that it is in fact a
> problem. My hope is there aren't too many cases.

I can't see how we can survive without using exactly one lock covering
the wake locks on SNB. Has someone tried sticking a simple spinlock
around the whole sequence (force_wake_get, op, force_wake_put)?

=2D-=20
keith.packard@intel.com

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFNpIQjQp8BWwlsTdMRAsIqAJ9LNOqpMm3pnVzSRPbp3R0hViwujACfWXMZ
uUvupSTXwiJ3kTgvD7S41xs=
=a6Ad
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--

--===============0282441436==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

--===============0282441436==--