On 2010.12.14 21:47:45 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:59:09 +0000, david may <david.ma...@ntlworld.com> > wrote: > > Hello Eric, > > > > Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 5:58:58 PM, you wrote: > > > > > Why don't we just keep all of our BOs LLC cached? This was supposed to > > > be a big win of the new chipset, as it means we don't need to clflush. > > > > Ohh,the implication here is that people are/have been writing the > > code,But Not bothering Actually benching/Profiling it to see if it actually > > is faster and > > better throughput than before, that seems wrong, especially given sandy > > bridge is > > supposed to be better, i Do Hope you are/will be testing/benching/Profiling > > to see if it/all SB Code is actually "a big win" one way or the other > > before passing for > > release. > > No, the default on SNB was changed back to uncached in order to fix some > coherency issues in the short term. Correctness first. >
yeah, it's short term, coherent issue would be fixed by GFDT bit. I was done that partly before, but seems fallback to old behavior is the easiest way to fix current correction issue. -- Open Source Technology Center, Intel ltd. $gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4D781827
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
