https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98172
--- Comment #49 from Suzuki, Shinji <shinji.suz...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Marek Olšák from comment #47)
> What was wrong with the initial mutex idea? I think the solution in comment
> 22 is sufficient to close this bug.
I did not like added storage overhead of containing a mutex and CPU overhead of
initialization and destruction of the mutex even for single threaded execution.
Also I wonder if the lock needed to be held while so->fence is inspected &
duplicated. (Per sync-object mutex poses less contention than using
ctx->Shared.Mutex therefore this point is not worth bothering about.)
However I can't see anything wrong with the fix.
--
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
