On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 01:11:02PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 04:39:37PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 06:09:49PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > We don't do CPU access to GPU contexts so making the GPU access snoop > > > the CPU caches seems silly, and potentially expensive. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Maybe define a macro to be HAS_L3_CACHE? > > What should I do with such a macro? I am trying to express what exactly we are testing for here. It is not exactly LLC we care about, but L3 to hide the context switch latency. Even though Ben thinks that's a waste of our limited resources. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
