On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:37:44PM +0000, John Harrison wrote: > On 12/01/2016 21:53, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 03:07:03PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:19:26AM +0000, John Harrison wrote: > >>>On 11/01/2016 22:16, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>>>On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:42:39PM +0000, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: > >>>>>From: John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com> > >>>>> > >>>>>MMIO flips are the preferred mechanism now but more importantly, > >>>>Says who? > >>>I asked this exact question at the linux architecture forum quite some time > >>>ago - does the scheduler need to worry about managing non-batch buffer work > >>>such as page flips. The answer from everyone present was no, MMIO flips are > >>>the way to go so don't over complicate the scheduler trying to support ring > >>>flips. Indeed, execlist mode already forces MMIO flips anyway. > >Two wrongs do not make a right, as they say. CS flips work very nicely > >with execlists. > They might have done at one point but if you don't test it then it > don't work and right now it ain't being tested because: > static bool use_mmio_flip(struct intel_engine_cs *ring, > struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj) > ... > else if (i915.enable_execlists) > return true;
Indeed, but that is not what I have in my kernels. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
