On 12/02/2014 01:45 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
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.
Right. That has been there for a couple of rev's. I have it addressed in
the RFC sent to you and Chris privately. Let me know if what I sent
isn't want you were hoping for.
-Daniel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
