On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 11:59:42AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 11:58:16AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: >> > I'm not clear if the hardware is still subject to the same prefetching >> > issues that made us use a scratch page in the first place. In either >> > case, we're using garbage with the current code (we will end up using >> > offset 0). >> > >> > This may be the cause of our current gem_cpu_reloc regression with >> > PPGTT. I cannot test it at the moment. >> > >> >> Wait NVM... that wasn't gen8. I can't associate this one with a bug. > > Yeah, this doesn't appear to achieve anything. ppgtt->base.scratch is > only used by ppgtt->base.clear_range() and there is no caller between > i915_gem_init_ppgtt() and ppgtt->base.scratch initialisation in > gen6_ppgtt_init(). Still the right thing to do for gen8 though, right? _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
