On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 04:04:14PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 03:47:01PM +0000, Gore, Tim wrote: > > N_buffers_load is still used. I am still submitting 1000 buffers to the ring, its just > > that I use the same buffers over and over (hence the "i % NUM_BUSY_BUFFERS"). > > So I only allocate 32 buffers, and each gets copied 1000/32 times, so the ring is kept > > busy for as long as previously. > > Ah oops, yes, indeed. Looks good then, pushed, thanks for the patch. The ring is kept as busy, but the queue depth is drastically reduced (from N_buffers to 32). Since both numbers are arbitrary, I am not adverse to the change, but I would feel happier if it was demonstrated that the new test is still capable of detecting bugs deliberately introduced into the ring synchronisation code. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
