On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 01:44:53PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 24/04/2017 12:07, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:28:32AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>
> >>On 19/04/2017 10:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>All the requests at the same priority are executed in FIFO order.
On 24/04/2017 12:07, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:28:32AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 19/04/2017 10:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
All the requests at the same priority are executed in FIFO order. They
do not need to be stored in the rbtree themselves, as they are a simple
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:07:47PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:28:32AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >
> > On 19/04/2017 10:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Sounds attractive! What workloads show the benefit and how much?
>
> The default will show the best, since
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:28:32AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 19/04/2017 10:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >All the requests at the same priority are executed in FIFO order. They
> >do not need to be stored in the rbtree themselves, as they are a simple
> >list within a level. If we move the
On 19/04/2017 10:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
All the requests at the same priority are executed in FIFO order. They
do not need to be stored in the rbtree themselves, as they are a simple
list within a level. If we move the requests at one priority into a list,
we can then reduce the rbtree to the
All the requests at the same priority are executed in FIFO order. They
do not need to be stored in the rbtree themselves, as they are a simple
list within a level. If we move the requests at one priority into a list,
we can then reduce the rbtree to the set of priorities. This should keep
the
