On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 11:19:19AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > 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. VLV has L3 too, but we can't control it via the PTEs. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
