On Fri, 16 May 2014 20:49:30 +0100
Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:34:08PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 May 2014 20:20:50 +0100
> > Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > We haven't even fixed the major regression from enabling FBC. What's
> > > another massive slowdown?
> >
>
On Fri, 16 May 2014 13:12:27 -0700
"Volkin, Bradley D" wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:53:30PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 May 2014 12:34:08 -0700
> > Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 16 May 2014 20:20:50 +0100
> > > Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > Yes, X only sets the secur
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:53:30PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 12:34:08 -0700
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 16 May 2014 20:20:50 +0100
> > Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Yes, X only sets the secure bit when it pokes the display registers, and
> > > those registers should be
On Fri, 16 May 2014 12:34:08 -0700
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 20:20:50 +0100
> Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Yes, X only sets the secure bit when it pokes the display registers, and
> > those registers should be privileged even with a cmd parser in place
> > (which they are).
> >
> > D
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:34:08PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 20:20:50 +0100
> Chris Wilson wrote:
> > We haven't even fixed the major regression from enabling FBC. What's
> > another massive slowdown?
>
> I thought you had that fixed in the X driver by avoiding front buffer
On Fri, 16 May 2014 20:20:50 +0100
Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:05:45PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:22:44 -0700
> > Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> >
> > > On 03/27/2014 03:44 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Kenneth Graun
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:05:45PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:22:44 -0700
> Kenneth Graunke wrote:
>
> > On 03/27/2014 03:44 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Kenneth Graunke
> > > wrote:
> > >> Why are we parsing batches with I915_EXEC_SE
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:22:44 -0700
Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On 03/27/2014 03:44 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Kenneth Graunke
> > wrote:
> >> Why are we parsing batches with I915_EXEC_SECURE at all? Secure batches
> >> are only issued from trusted code which is
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 04:42:21PM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:16:26PM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Volkin, Bradley D
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:57:21AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >> Another one that blows i
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:16:26PM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Volkin, Bradley D
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:57:21AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> Another one that blows is igt/gen7_forcewake_mt. Not sure yet whether it's
> >> an issue with the tes
On 03/27/2014 03:44 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Kenneth Graunke
> wrote:
>> Why are we parsing batches with I915_EXEC_SECURE at all? Secure batches
>> are only issued from trusted code which is guaranteed to be running as
>> root. I don't see any benefit to scan
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> Why are we parsing batches with I915_EXEC_SECURE at all? Secure batches
> are only issued from trusted code which is guaranteed to be running as
> root. I don't see any benefit to scanning those batches, and there's
> definitely overhead
On 03/27/2014 01:16 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Volkin, Bradley D
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:57:21AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> Another one that blows is igt/gen7_forcewake_mt. Not sure yet whether it's
>>> an issue with the test or the checker:
>>>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Volkin, Bradley D
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:57:21AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> Another one that blows is igt/gen7_forcewake_mt. Not sure yet whether it's
>> an issue with the test or the checker:
>>
>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7667
[snip]
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:57:21AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Another one that blows is igt/gen7_forcewake_mt. Not sure yet whether it's
> an issue with the test or the checker:
>
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76670
For this one, the parser rejects an MI_STORE_REGISTER
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:26:05AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:37:44AM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > On 03/26/2014 09:38 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 09:03:58AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:21:23PM -
On 03/26/2014 11:26 AM, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:37:44AM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
>> On 03/26/2014 09:38 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 09:03:58AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:21:23PM -0700, Daniel Vetter wro
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:26:05AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:37:44AM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > On 03/26/2014 09:38 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 09:03:58AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:21:23PM -
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:37:44AM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On 03/26/2014 09:38 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 09:03:58AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:21:23PM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:52:03PM -0700,
On 03/26/2014 09:38 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 09:03:58AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:21:23PM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:52:03PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
Mesa needs to be able to write OACONTROL in o
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 09:03:58AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:21:23PM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:52:03PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > > Mesa needs to be able to write OACONTROL in order to expose the
> > > Observability Architec
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:21:23PM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:52:03PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > Mesa needs to be able to write OACONTROL in order to expose the
> > Observability Architecture's performance counters via OpenGL.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kenneth Gra
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> Mesa needs to be able to write OACONTROL in order to expose the
> Observability Architecture's performance counters via OpenGL.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c | 1 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:52:03PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> Mesa needs to be able to write OACONTROL in order to expose the
> Observability Architecture's performance counters via OpenGL.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke
Thanks a lot for quickly tracking this down. Now when we've talked
Mesa needs to be able to write OACONTROL in order to expose the
Observability Architecture's performance counters via OpenGL.
Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c | 1 +
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h| 2 ++
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
This pat
25 matches
Mail list logo
