Task scheduler: Avoid mutex lock in number manipulation functions
It seems using atomic operations here we can avoid having mute without breaking anything. Thanks Bastien for double-checking the changes!
This commit is contained in:
parent
9239257806
commit
a1d8fe052c
@ -230,28 +230,21 @@ static void task_free(TaskPool *pool, Task *task, const int thread_id)
|
||||
|
||||
static void task_pool_num_decrease(TaskPool *pool, size_t done)
|
||||
{
|
||||
BLI_mutex_lock(&pool->num_mutex);
|
||||
|
||||
BLI_assert(pool->num >= done);
|
||||
|
||||
pool->num -= done;
|
||||
atomic_sub_z((size_t*)&pool->num, done);
|
||||
atomic_sub_z(&pool->currently_running_tasks, done);
|
||||
pool->done += done;
|
||||
atomic_add_z((size_t*)&pool->done, done);
|
||||
|
||||
if (pool->num == 0)
|
||||
if (pool->num == 0) {
|
||||
BLI_condition_notify_all(&pool->num_cond);
|
||||
|
||||
BLI_mutex_unlock(&pool->num_mutex);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static void task_pool_num_increase(TaskPool *pool)
|
||||
{
|
||||
BLI_mutex_lock(&pool->num_mutex);
|
||||
|
||||
pool->num++;
|
||||
atomic_add_z((size_t*)&pool->num, 1);
|
||||
BLI_condition_notify_all(&pool->num_cond);
|
||||
|
||||
BLI_mutex_unlock(&pool->num_mutex);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static bool task_scheduler_thread_wait_pop(TaskScheduler *scheduler, Task **task)
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user