On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:02:18AM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Chris Wilson
> ><[1]ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:28:53AM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> >
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:02:18AM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Chris Wilson
><[1]ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:28:53AM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > Before, we were just looking at whether or not the user wan
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:28:53AM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > Before, we were just looking at whether or not the user wanted us to
> > wait and waiting on the BO. Some clients, such as the Serious engine,
> > use a single query pool fo
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:28:53AM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Before, we were just looking at whether or not the user wanted us to
> wait and waiting on the BO. Some clients, such as the Serious engine,
> use a single query pool for hundreds of individual query results where
> the writes for t
Before, we were just looking at whether or not the user wanted us to
wait and waiting on the BO. Some clients, such as the Serious engine,
use a single query pool for hundreds of individual query results where
the writes for those queries may be split across several command
buffers. In this scena
