On 01/07/16 11:44, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Now I feel silly. Looking at the .s, there is no difference with the > addition of the barrier to clflush_cache_range(). And sure enough > letting the test run for longer, we see a failure. I fell for a placebo. > > The failing assertion is always on the last cacheline and is always one > value behind. Oh well, back to wondering where we miss the flush. > -Chris > Could you include the assembly here? -hpa _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
