"O. Hartmann" <ohartman_at_zedat.fu-berlin.de> writes: > Am Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:00:15 +0200 > Jean-Sébastien Pédron <dumbbell_at_FreeBSD.org> 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. -- NikolaReceived 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