On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:22:56PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 01:28:46PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > On ma, 2015-04-27 at 20:43 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 06:35:54PM +0100, Thomas Wood wrote: > > > > On 24 April 2015 at 08:38, Joonas Lahtinen > > > > <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Now that there is PAGE_SIZE define, use it. > > > > > > > > Thanks, I've pushed this patch. I also noticed PAGE_SIZE gets defined > > > > in several tests, so at some point it might be worth moving it into > > > > the library. > > > > > > Be wary of these though. PAGE_SIZE should only ever be used wrt to struct > > > page and not GPU pages. If you must, please use GTT_PAGE_SIZE instead. > > > > Do we have a platform/case where these are different? Just asking out of > > curiosity :) > > Yes. We just haven't enabled big pages yet. The thought of getting globs > of 64k contiguous physical memory isn't too appealing, but like with > hugepages there are likely enough tasks that benefit. I thought the verdict thus far was that hw engineers overspecced tlbs and 64k pages aren't really worth it except in some corner-case video code workloads. Might have changed with the gen8+ pagetables, but I haven't seen any new noises about this. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
