On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 04:12:37PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 08:05:02AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > Context save and restore is by definition a slow process, however it is > > also an infrequent process. Don't try to optimize the save restore at > > the cost of any of our precious cache space. Contexts begin to get quite > > large on HSW and beyond. > > Infrequent? Relative to operations which use the cache. > > > At least for benchmarks people seem to care about, there is almost > > always only 1 context running, which means I don't expect this to do any > > harm. For benchmarks with many contexts, there could be performance > > degradation - but I have a sneaking suspicion the HW will do some fancy > > magic to speak up context save & restores anyway. > > There are at least 2 contexts in every benchmark QA cares about. It > wasn't like making them L3 objects in the first place was motivated by > benchmark results... > No, I've no doubt it was motivated by benchmarks, but I think making it L3 (which I still have a hard time believe would do at all what it's intended to do) would only prove further that not wasting LLC space is a good thing. The theory follows that not wasting L3 space is also a good thing. > Anyway the idea was to see if QA still notice a difference... > -Chris > I'll try to be an optimist for once. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
