| Message ID | 1389124986-32501-1-git-send-email-kusmabite@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Ping? On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> wrote: > When patching gathers, we don't need to check against > gathers with lower indices than the current one, as > they are guaranteed to already have been handled. > > Signed-off-by: Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> > --- > > Here's a trivial optimization I have been running with for a while. > > drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c > index de5ec33..e965805 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c > @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ int host1x_job_pin(struct host1x_job *job, struct device *dev) > > g->base = job->gather_addr_phys[i]; > > - for (j = 0; j < job->num_gathers; j++) > + for (j = i + 1; j < job->num_gathers; j++) > if (job->gathers[j].bo == g->bo) > job->gathers[j].handled = true; > > -- > 1.8.1.2 >
On 07.01.2014 22:03, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > When patching gathers, we don't need to check against > gathers with lower indices than the current one, as > they are guaranteed to already have been handled. > > Signed-off-by: Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> > --- > > Here's a trivial optimization I have been running with for a while. > > drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c > index de5ec33..e965805 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c > @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ int host1x_job_pin(struct host1x_job *job, struct device *dev) > > g->base = job->gather_addr_phys[i]; > > - for (j = 0; j < job->num_gathers; j++) > + for (j = i + 1; j < job->num_gathers; j++) > if (job->gathers[j].bo == g->bo) > job->gathers[j].handled = true; > Hi, Thanks. This looks good logically, and I ran some tests that agree. Acked-By: Terje Bergstrom <tbergstrom@nvidia.com> Terje
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 09:03:06PM +0100, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > When patching gathers, we don't need to check against > gathers with lower indices than the current one, as > they are guaranteed to already have been handled. > > Signed-off-by: Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> > --- > > Here's a trivial optimization I have been running with for a while. > > drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Applied, thanks! Thierry
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 09:03:06PM +0100, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > When patching gathers, we don't need to check against > gathers with lower indices than the current one, as > they are guaranteed to already have been handled. > > Signed-off-by: Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> > --- > > Here's a trivial optimization I have been running with for a while. > > drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Applied, thanks! Thierry
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c index de5ec33..e965805 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ int host1x_job_pin(struct host1x_job *job, struct device *dev) g->base = job->gather_addr_phys[i]; - for (j = 0; j < job->num_gathers; j++) + for (j = i + 1; j < job->num_gathers; j++) if (job->gathers[j].bo == g->bo) job->gathers[j].handled = true;
When patching gathers, we don't need to check against gathers with lower indices than the current one, as they are guaranteed to already have been handled. Signed-off-by: Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> --- Here's a trivial optimization I have been running with for a while. drivers/gpu/host1x/job.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)