On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 02:39:51PM -0800, Michael H. Nguyen wrote: > > > On 11/26/2014 11:44 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:53:34PM -0800, michael.h.nguyen@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>From: "Michael H. Nguyen" <michael.h.nguyen@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>This is v5 of the series sent here: > >>http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2014-November/055141.html > >> > >>This version incorporates the following feedback from v4. > >> > >>- 0/7 Move 'pending_read_domains |= I915_GEM_DOMAIN_COMMAND' after the > >> parser (danvet) > >>- 1/7 Move purged check inside the loop (danvet) > >>- 6/7 Move 'shadow_batch_obj->madv = I915_MADV_WILLNEED' inside _get > >> fnc (danvet) > >>- 7/7 Move pin/unpin calls inside i915_parse_cmds() (Chris W) > >> > >>Issue: VIZ-4719 > >>Brad Volkin (7): > >> drm/i915: Implement a framework for batch buffer pools > >> drm/i915: Use batch pools with the command parser > >> drm/i915: Add a batch pool debugfs file > >> drm/i915: Add batch pool details to i915_gem_objects debugfs > >> drm/i915: Use batch length instead of object size in command parser > >> drm/i915: Mark shadow batch buffers as purgeable > >> drm/i915: Tidy up execbuffer command parsing code > > > >This still does not incorporate the feedback from the last N cycles. > > > >Chiefly: A single cache list, madvise on creation, and squash the > >framework and debugging patches into one. > > Re: single cache list > > OK. Found the feedback in an old rev. Btw in your patch you have a fancy retry loop looking at was_purged. On a quick look that shouldn't be needed and a simple list-walk should be all you need I think. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
