On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 09:47:49AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 28 April 2017 at 07:27, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > 2017-04-26 Christian König :
> >
> >> Am 26.04.2017 um 16:46 schrieb Andres Rodriguez:
> >> > When a timeout of zero is specified, the caller is only interested in
> >> > the fence
On 28 April 2017 at 07:27, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> 2017-04-26 Christian König :
>
>> Am 26.04.2017 um 16:46 schrieb Andres Rodriguez:
>> > When a timeout of zero is specified, the caller is only interested in
>> > the fence status.
>> >
>> > In the current implementation, dma_fence_default_wait w
2017-04-26 Christian König :
> Am 26.04.2017 um 16:46 schrieb Andres Rodriguez:
> > When a timeout of zero is specified, the caller is only interested in
> > the fence status.
> >
> > In the current implementation, dma_fence_default_wait will always call
> > schedule_timeout() at least once for a
Am 26.04.2017 um 16:46 schrieb Andres Rodriguez:
When a timeout of zero is specified, the caller is only interested in
the fence status.
In the current implementation, dma_fence_default_wait will always call
schedule_timeout() at least once for an unsignaled fence. This adds a
significant overhe
When a timeout of zero is specified, the caller is only interested in
the fence status.
In the current implementation, dma_fence_default_wait will always call
schedule_timeout() at least once for an unsignaled fence. This adds a
significant overhead to a fence status query.
Avoid this overhead by
On 2017-04-26 06:13 AM, Christian König wrote:
Am 26.04.2017 um 11:59 schrieb Dave Airlie:
On 26 April 2017 at 17:20, Christian König
wrote:
NAK, I'm wondering how often I have to reject that change. We should
probably add a comment here.
Even with a zero timeout we still need to enable sig
Am 26.04.2017 um 11:59 schrieb Dave Airlie:
On 26 April 2017 at 17:20, Christian König wrote:
NAK, I'm wondering how often I have to reject that change. We should
probably add a comment here.
Even with a zero timeout we still need to enable signaling, otherwise some
fence will never signal if
On 26 April 2017 at 17:20, Christian König wrote:
> NAK, I'm wondering how often I have to reject that change. We should
> probably add a comment here.
>
> Even with a zero timeout we still need to enable signaling, otherwise some
> fence will never signal if userspace just polls on them.
>
> If a
NAK, I'm wondering how often I have to reject that change. We should
probably add a comment here.
Even with a zero timeout we still need to enable signaling, otherwise
some fence will never signal if userspace just polls on them.
If a caller is only interested in the fence status without enab
CC a few extra lists I missed.
Regards,
Andres
On 2017-04-25 09:36 PM, Andres Rodriguez wrote:
When a timeout of zero is specified, the caller is only interested in
the fence status.
In the current implementation, dma_fence_default_wait will always call
schedule_timeout() at least once for an
When a timeout of zero is specified, the caller is only interested in
the fence status.
In the current implementation, dma_fence_default_wait will always call
schedule_timeout() at least once for an unsignaled fence. This adds a
significant overhead to a fence status query.
Avoid this overhead by
11 matches
Mail list logo
