On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 11:55:49AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
When waiting for a single fence beneath a syncobj, forgo our open coding for waiting over multiple fences and call the driver specific dma_fence_wait_timeout(). This gives the opportunity for the driver to handle it more efficiently then the lcd of signal callbacks, and avoids the temporary allocations and array iterations.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
Aside: Do the igts test both the single and multi-case? -Daniel
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c index d4f4ce484529..c0f787f7a298 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c @@ -695,6 +695,14 @@ static signed long drm_syncobj_array_wait_timeout(struct drm_syncobj **syncobjs, signed long ret; uint32_t signaled_count, i;
- /* KISS for the common case of waiting for a single submitted fence. */
- if (count == 1 && (fence = drm_syncobj_fence_get(syncobjs[0]))) {
ret = dma_fence_wait_timeout(fence, true, timeout);dma_fence_put(fence);*idx = 0;return ret;- }
- entries = kcalloc(count, sizeof(*entries), GFP_KERNEL); if (!entries) return -ENOMEM;
-- 2.17.0
Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx