On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 03:02:32PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 03:49:26PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:08:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > With the seqlock now extended to cover the lookup of the fence and its
> > > testing, we can perform
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:08:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> With the seqlock now extended to cover the lookup of the fence and its
> testing, we can perform that testing solely under the seqlock guard and
> avoid the effective locking and serialisation of acquiring a reference to
> the request.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 03:49:26PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:08:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > With the seqlock now extended to cover the lookup of the fence and its
> > testing, we can perform that testing solely under the seqlock guard and
> > avoid the effecti
With the seqlock now extended to cover the lookup of the fence and its
testing, we can perform that testing solely under the seqlock guard and
avoid the effective locking and serialisation of acquiring a reference to
the request. As the fence is RCU protected we know it cannot disappear
as we test
