From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Thu Sep 17 19:40:30 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7DB9CF494 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:40:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from n.pajkovsky@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 009EF18A7; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:40:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from n.pajkovsky@gmail.com) Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so4936479wic.0; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:40:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3d6ExedGh1kxqU5uCDKVp2b+jhDXJjT+LOuts+IYWw8=; b=nEc88B0Dh7u7mcNSCL5tbJBAmyXkY6gHwTGxXCjJ5ngP72plevpPJvOasZSenIylTD 7Dvuaupqihrnk6AbQWQLPt64rK13fB6HcagutoLgu6W0onKclUujPDutVKra1qu83Qqg gOBB5nEYBXEtl6+FOJqjL+7C8LIdi28zkp5PxdQBRmQ1meT+vLRG+KdvtHsYQBg4I7i/ Cw52ccKfdX+Mak6QUQ9oojcPKCKEOWf66SSdQNPj82Zl54OYJzdgp/kE3E8JdnQDa5dV eUJSKryFjl1Vr+KV8qZWsptiJuPycktilvLpG0nDLBqEqZ4sLl899Mo5/exVu1VBWh5m 9f9A== X-Received: by 10.180.84.102 with SMTP id x6mr33934508wiy.75.1442518828520; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-94-112-33-45.net.upcbroadband.cz. [94.112.33.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s16sm11665490wik.13.2015.09.17.12.40.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:40:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Nikola Pajkovsky To: "O. Hartmann" Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Jean-S=C3=A9bastien_P=C3=A9dron?= , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intel Haswell support - Any updates? References: <55FA7324.5010603@icloud.com> <55FAF19F.9090701@FreeBSD.org> <20150917212228.75ec5471.ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:40:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20150917212228.75ec5471.ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> (O. Hartmann's message of "Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:22:28 +0200") Message-ID: <87io78ltqt.fsf@gooddata.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:40:30 -0000 "O. Hartmann" writes: > Am Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:00:15 +0200 > Jean-S=C3=A9bastien P=C3=A9dron schrieb: > >> Hi everyone! >>=20 >> I'm very sorry I didn't communicate at all on the i915 update project. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> Obviously, do not expect something stable in the coming couple days. >> Thank you for your patience :) >>=20 >> To answer various questions in this thread: >>=20 >> 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 do= main, 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. --=20 Nikola