On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 01:03:29AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> Well we have a get/set_caching ioctl, explictly with room for stuff >> like aging. > > It's like someone wrote such patches almost a year ago, and they were > rejected as overly complicated by some maintainer. Rejected as "needs to be justified with performance data and a mesa/userspace use-case", not "rejected as too complicated, period". >> So this can be added in any case. But yeah if someone can >> check whether we have the same regression on iris or not would be >> good. Can you please poke QA (or whoever has one of these boxen)? >> -Daniel > > Well, forgetting regressions for just one sec, what do you think makes > the most sense? If you think it should be 3, it's probably not even > worth the effort since I barely care - and I'm happy to just change it.. Since the iris split happened after the regression and we've just argued that age3 seems to be the right default (as long as mesa doesn't do anything special) I think we should argue for age3 on iris systems, too. Imo argueing against simply propagating the copy&paste change needs performance data. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
