Re: patches for occlusion query fix on sandybridge

[Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1268 bytes --]

On 2010.12.14 21:47:45 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:59:09 +0000, david may <david.may10@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Hello Eric,
> > 
> > Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 5:58:58 PM, you wrote:
> > 
> > > Why don't we just keep all of our BOs LLC cached?  This was supposed to
> > > be a big win of the new chipset, as it means we don't need to clflush.
> > 
> > Ohh,the implication here is that people are/have been writing the
> > code,But Not bothering Actually benching/Profiling it to see if it actually is faster and
> >  better throughput than before, that seems wrong, especially given sandy bridge is
> >  supposed to be better, i Do Hope you are/will be testing/benching/Profiling
> >   to see if it/all SB Code is actually  "a big win" one way or the other before passing for
> >  release.
> 
> No, the default on SNB was changed back to uncached in order to fix some
> coherency issues in the short term. Correctness first.
> 

yeah, it's short term, coherent issue would be fixed by GFDT bit.
I was done that partly before, but seems fallback to old behavior
is the easiest way to fix current correction issue.

-- 
Open Source Technology Center, Intel ltd.

$gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4D781827

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 159 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx