On ma, 2016-05-02 at 10:28 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 08:15:24PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On to, 2016-04-28 at 16:48 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:38:55AM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > > On to, 2016-04-28 at 10:17 +0200, Daniel Vetter wro
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:28:50AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 08:15:24PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On to, 2016-04-28 at 16:48 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:38:55AM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > > On to, 2016-04-28 at 10:17 +0200, Daniel Ve
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 08:15:24PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> On to, 2016-04-28 at 16:48 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:38:55AM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > On to, 2016-04-28 at 10:17 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > Also, you're guaranateeing that opencl/libva don't
Hi,
On 27.04.2016 17:53, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:25:09PM +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
[...]
Daniel, Chris, did you have some concrete example in mind where 3D
driver would require CPU to snoop GPU?
Not mesa, but X can do concurrent rendering to a Pixmap whilst also
rend
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 04:48:37PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:38:55AM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On to, 2016-04-28 at 10:17 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:01:06PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > > On ti, 2016-04-26 at 15:42 +0100, Chris Wil
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 04:44:00PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:48:27PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:13:37AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 08:57:51PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:
On to, 2016-04-28 at 16:48 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:38:55AM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On to, 2016-04-28 at 10:17 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:01:06PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > > On ti, 2016-04-26 at 15:42 +0100, Chris Wilson wrot
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:38:55AM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> On to, 2016-04-28 at 10:17 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:01:06PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > On ti, 2016-04-26 at 15:42 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:26:43PM +0300, Eero Tammi
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:48:27PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:13:37AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 08:57:51PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:30:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:13:37AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 08:57:51PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:30:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:26:43PM +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 26.
On to, 2016-04-28 at 10:17 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:01:06PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On ti, 2016-04-26 at 15:42 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:26:43PM +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 26.04.2016 16:23, Chris
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:01:06PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> On ti, 2016-04-26 at 15:42 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:26:43PM +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 26.04.2016 16:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:17:55PM +0300, Imr
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 08:57:51PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:30:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:26:43PM +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 26.04.2016 16:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:17:55P
On 27/04/16 15:53, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:25:09PM +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
Hi,
On 26.04.2016 20:25, Frederick, Michael T wrote:
Sorry I'm not tracking all the MOCs discussions. I just want to indicate what
the coherency means in SoC for BXT.
GTI sets the non-inclu
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:25:09PM +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26.04.2016 20:25, Frederick, Michael T wrote:
> >Sorry I'm not tracking all the MOCs discussions. I just want to indicate
> >what the coherency means in SoC for BXT.
> >
> >GTI sets the non-inclusive bit on the IDI inter
gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Rantala, Valtteri ; Frederick, Michael T
; Ville Syrjälä
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/i915/bxt: Fix inadvertent CPU
snooping due to incorrect MOCS config
Hi,
On 26.04.2016 17:30, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:26:43PM +0300, Eero Tammi
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:30:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:26:43PM +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 26.04.2016 16:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > >On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:17:55PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > >>On ti, 2016-04-26 at 13:57 +0100, Chris Wil
altteri
; Frederick, Michael T
; Ville Syrjälä
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/i915/bxt: Fix inadvertent CPU
snooping due to incorrect MOCS config
Hi,
On 26.04.2016 17:30, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:26:43PM +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
[...]
>> What this ke
Hi,
On 26.04.2016 17:30, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:26:43PM +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
[...]
What this kernel ABI (index entry #2) has been agreed & documented to
provide?
I thought this entry is supposed to replace the writeback LLC/eLLC cache
MOCS setting Mesa is using
On ti, 2016-04-26 at 15:42 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:26:43PM +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 26.04.2016 16:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:17:55PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > > On ti, 2016-04-26 at 13:57 +0100, Chris Wilson wr
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:26:43PM +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26.04.2016 16:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:17:55PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> >>On ti, 2016-04-26 at 13:57 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:44:22PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:26:43PM +0300, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26.04.2016 16:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:17:55PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> >>On ti, 2016-04-26 at 13:57 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:44:22PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
Hi,
On 26.04.2016 16:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:17:55PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
On ti, 2016-04-26 at 13:57 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:44:22PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
Setting a write-back cache policy in the MOCS entry definition also
implies
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:43:10PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> On ti, 2016-04-26 at 14:23 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:17:55PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > On ti, 2016-04-26 at 13:57 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:44:22PM +0300, Imre Deak w
On ti, 2016-04-26 at 14:23 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:17:55PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On ti, 2016-04-26 at 13:57 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:44:22PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > > Setting a write-back cache policy in the MOCS entry d
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 04:17:55PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> On ti, 2016-04-26 at 13:57 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:44:22PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > Setting a write-back cache policy in the MOCS entry definition also
> > > implies snooping, which has a considerabl
On ti, 2016-04-26 at 13:57 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:44:22PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > Setting a write-back cache policy in the MOCS entry definition also
> > implies snooping, which has a considerable overhead. This is
> > unexpected for a few reasons:
>
> If it is
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:44:22PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> Setting a write-back cache policy in the MOCS entry definition also
> implies snooping, which has a considerable overhead. This is
> unexpected for a few reasons:
> - From user-space's point of view since it didn't want a coherent
> sur
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:44:22PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> Setting a write-back cache policy in the MOCS entry definition also
> implies snooping, which has a considerable overhead. This is
> unexpected for a few reasons:
If it is snooping, then I don't see why it is undesirable to have it
avail
Setting a write-back cache policy in the MOCS entry definition also
implies snooping, which has a considerable overhead. This is
unexpected for a few reasons:
- From user-space's point of view since it didn't want a coherent
surface (it didn't set the buffer as such via the set caching IOCTL).
-
30 matches
Mail list logo
