On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 1:32:53 AM PST Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Kenneth Graunke (2018-01-23 09:28:20) > > The purpose of the workaround BO is to write to it. > > Do you care for the serialisation here? I thought the purpose of the wa > was just for write-only memory, so lying to the kernel to disable write > hazards is acceptable. > -Chris
We don't usually read it, so it should be fine, but I don't like lying about things...it was more an oversight than an intentional way to avoid synchronization. What synchronization would there be, anyway, assuming we don't ever read it or map it? I thought we still read it for register checks, though it appears that we now allocate a dedicated BO for that purpose. Plus, screen creation time is long done by the time we have a context and start using BLORP... So basically, I don't like lying. Is there really an advantage to it?
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
