Quoting Summers, Stuart (2019-11-19 22:58:38) > On Tue, 2019-11-19 at 22:08 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Stuart Summers (2019-11-19 21:30:32) > > > mmap_gtt is already covered by a check for aperture presence. > > > Also add the case to the gem_set_domain IOCTL to avoid this > > > path for unsupported platforms. > > > > It doesn't harm either, it will just mean in a place where it is > > neither > > in the GPU nor in the CPU cache, same as it does today. The > > additional > > flushes coming out of a GTT write domain should already be elided. > > > > It is used internally to mean precisely that... > > > > Userspace should already be weaning itself off set-domain altogether. > > But even with the weaning, shouldn't we have these checks in place for > safety? Let's say there's some platform issue with the GTT flushes and > moving ahead causes the hardware to get in a bad state. Isn't it better > to bail early? Let me know if I'm missing something obvious here > though. That we use it internally. It will never be unsafe simply because if the extra flushes don't exist, they don't exist. Just like today! -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
