[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPM=9tz5wBWt88DbddWL8WZL-=WKLFP3LtjdjY2VUJXBQ=O7Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:18:35 +1000
From: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To: sanjeev sharma <sanjeevsharmaengg@...il.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Do not use BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked())
>ssert_spin_locked() is a better option.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Unless there's a bug, assert_spin_locked() is just going to incur an
>> > unnecessary cost every time it is called at runtime. My suggestion was
>> > to
>> > limit that check only to debugging kernels that include enabling lockdep
>> > when tracking down problems rather than needlessly evaluating the
>> > conditional every time when there are no bugs.
>>
>> My experience with gpu drivers (i915) has been that hw and the software
>> running it is varied enough that almost always it's better to
>> unconditionally enable this stuff. I much prefer assert_spin_locked and
>> friends over the lockdep versions since enabling full lockdep is not
>> something you usually do. Especially not normal users, and we rely upon
>> them for testing the old stuff. Furthermore for the modeset code the
>> overhead is totally irrelevant since we're doing metric piles of register
>> reads and writes in there anyway.
Did anything translate into an R-b here?
Dave.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists