Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 10/42] drm/i915: Defer active reference until required

2016-10-08 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 07/10/2016 17:58, Chris Wilson wrote: On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 05:35:38PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 07/10/2016 10:46, Chris Wilson wrote: We only need the active reference to keep the object alive after the handle has been deleted (so as to prevent a synchronous gem_close). Why then pa

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 10/42] drm/i915: Defer active reference until required

2016-10-07 Thread Chris Wilson
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 05:35:38PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 07/10/2016 10:46, Chris Wilson wrote: > >We only need the active reference to keep the object alive after the > >handle has been deleted (so as to prevent a synchronous gem_close). Why > >then pay the price of a kref on every e

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 10/42] drm/i915: Defer active reference until required

2016-10-07 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 07/10/2016 10:46, Chris Wilson wrote: We only need the active reference to keep the object alive after the handle has been deleted (so as to prevent a synchronous gem_close). Why then pay the price of a kref on every execbuf when we can insert that final active ref just in time for the handle

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 10/42] drm/i915: Defer active reference until required

2016-10-07 Thread Chris Wilson
We only need the active reference to keep the object alive after the handle has been deleted (so as to prevent a synchronous gem_close). Why then pay the price of a kref on every execbuf when we can insert that final active ref just in time for the handle deletion? Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson Rev