On Monday, September 18, 2017 11:03:37 AM PDT Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Kenneth Graunke (2017-09-18 18:56:56)
> > This is, by definition, finishing the batch.
> > ---
> > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_batchbuffer.c | 14 +++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_batchbuffer.c
> > b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_batchbuffer.c
> > index 7d5a8947e8f..dd584f533b9 100644
> > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_batchbuffer.c
> > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_batchbuffer.c
> > @@ -665,6 +665,13 @@ brw_finish_batch(struct brw_context *brw)
> > PIPE_CONTROL_CS_STALL);
> > }
> > }
> > +
> > + /* Mark the end of the buffer. */
> > + intel_batchbuffer_emit_dword(&brw->batch, MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END);
> > + if (USED_BATCH(brw->batch) & 1) {
> > + /* Round batchbuffer usage to 2 DWORDs. */
> > + intel_batchbuffer_emit_dword(&brw->batch, MI_NOOP);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > static void
> > @@ -899,13 +906,6 @@ _intel_batchbuffer_flush_fence(struct brw_context *brw,
> >
> > brw_finish_batch(brw);
> >
> > - /* Mark the end of the buffer. */
> > - intel_batchbuffer_emit_dword(&brw->batch, MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END);
> > - if (USED_BATCH(brw->batch) & 1) {
> > - /* Round batchbuffer usage to 2 DWORDs. */
> > - intel_batchbuffer_emit_dword(&brw->batch, MI_NOOP);
> > - }
> > -
> > intel_upload_finish(brw);
>
> Tangential: Do we care about intel_upload_finish on batch flush any more
> now that async access is universal?
> -ChrisI'm not sure. We could certainly enable async maps for the upload BOs, and avoid flushing them when finishing the batch. Then again, since the uploaded data is still related to the commands in the batch, it might make sense to "start fresh" with every batch. I don't think it much matters, anymore. --Ken
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
