On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:24:32AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:19:32AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On a non-llc system, the objects are created with .cache_level =
> > CACHE_NONE and so the transition to uncached for scanout is a no-op.
> > However, if the object
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:24:32AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:19:32AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On a non-llc system, the objects are created with .cache_level =
> > CACHE_NONE and so the transition to uncached for scanout is a no-op.
> > However, if the object
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:19:32AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On a non-llc system, the objects are created with .cache_level =
> CACHE_NONE and so the transition to uncached for scanout is a no-op.
> However, if the object was never written to, it will still be in the CPU
> domain (having been
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:19:32AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On a non-llc system, the objects are created with .cache_level =
> CACHE_NONE and so the transition to uncached for scanout is a no-op.
> However, if the object was never written to, it will still be in the CPU
> domain (having been
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 04:24:50PM -0600, l...@pengaru.com wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:17:06PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:19:32AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On a non-llc system, the objects are created with .cache_level =
> > > CACHE_NONE and so the
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 04:24:50PM -0600, l...@pengaru.com wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:17:06PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:19:32AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On a non-llc system, the objects are created with .cache_level =
> > > CACHE_NONE and so the
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:17:06PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:19:32AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On a non-llc system, the objects are created with .cache_level =
> > CACHE_NONE and so the transition to uncached for scanout is a no-op.
> > However, if the object was
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:17:06PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:19:32AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On a non-llc system, the objects are created with .cache_level =
> > CACHE_NONE and so the transition to uncached for scanout is a no-op.
> > However, if the object was
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:19:32AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On a non-llc system, the objects are created with .cache_level =
> CACHE_NONE and so the transition to uncached for scanout is a no-op.
> However, if the object was never written to, it will still be in the CPU
> domain (having been
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:19:32AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On a non-llc system, the objects are created with .cache_level =
> CACHE_NONE and so the transition to uncached for scanout is a no-op.
> However, if the object was never written to, it will still be in the CPU
> domain (having been
On a non-llc system, the objects are created with .cache_level =
CACHE_NONE and so the transition to uncached for scanout is a no-op.
However, if the object was never written to, it will still be in the CPU
domain (having been zeroed out by shmemfs). Those cachelines need to be
flushed prior to
On a non-llc system, the objects are created with .cache_level =
CACHE_NONE and so the transition to uncached for scanout is a no-op.
However, if the object was never written to, it will still be in the CPU
domain (having been zeroed out by shmemfs). Those cachelines need to be
flushed prior to
12 matches
Mail list logo
