On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:24:36 +0100, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:59:55 -0700, Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:31:52 +0100, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Replace the three nearly identical copies of the code with a single
> > > function. And take advantage of the opportunity to do some
> > > micro-optimisation: avoid the vmalloc if at all possible and also avoid
> > > dropping the lock unless we are forced to acquire the mm semaphore.
> > 
> > Could we get some performance numbers in patches that add code for
> > performance?
> 
> For myself, this was justified by simply refactoring the common code.
> However, x11perf -aa10text on pnv:
>   before: 1.28 Mglyph/sec
>   after:  1.45 Mglyph/sec

Awesome.