Re: Intel Haswell support - Any updates?

From: Nikola Pajkovsky <>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:40:26 +0200
"O. Hartmann" <> writes:

> Am Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:00:15 +0200
> Jean-Sébastien Pédron <> schrieb:
>> Hi everyone!
>> I'm very sorry I didn't communicate at all on the i915 update project.
>> So here is a status update: since this morning, the driver builds fine.
>> I'm currently attending the XDC (X.Org Developers Conference) and don't
>> have an Intel laptop to test with me. However, Johannes Dieterich (also
>> attending the conference) offerred his help, so we will do that today.
>> Obviously, do not expect something stable in the coming couple days.
>> Thank you for your patience :)
>> To answer various questions in this thread:
>> Why does it take so much time to update? Once Konstantin committed his
>> i915 update, I was busy with non-FreeBSD activities until last July,
>> when I slowly started back to work on i915. My goal is to reduce the
>> diff with Linux as much as possible. But, as opposed to OpenBSD and
>> DragonFlyBSD, we do not use a Linux compatibility layer which would
>> dramatically ease our life.
> My concerns are speed and performance. Isn't any kind of layer consuming performance -
> sometimes worse, sometimes negligible. But anyway, HPC isn't a FreeBSD domain, so ...

Look at the linux spinlock layer in ofed/include/linux/spinlock.h

	#define	spin_lock(_l)		mtx_lock(&(_l)->m)
	#define	spin_unlock(_l)		mtx_unlock(&(_l)->m)
	#define	spin_trylock(_l)	mtx_trylock(&(_l)->m)

means, that using spinlock linux layer does not have any performance
impact. I haven't read all ofed code, but most of that is just bunch of
macros and renaming stuff to use linux code without changes and no
performance impact.

Received on Thu Sep 17 2015 - 17:40:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:59 UTC