From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
Subject: Re: intel_prepare_render(intel); unhelpful?
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 13:17:46 -0700
Message-ID: <87wrowu7bp.fsf@pollan.anholt.net>
References: <1288487734.3762.12.camel@pcjc2lap>
	<877hgxwvfp.fsf@pollan.anholt.net>
	<1288641178.21440.61.camel@pcjc2lap>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0510146250=="
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
In-Reply-To: <1288641178.21440.61.camel@pcjc2lap>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Peter Clifton <pcjc2@cam.ac.uk>, "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

--===============0510146250==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:52:58 +0000, Peter Clifton <pcjc2@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 20:54 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
>=20
> > Now, this version of the code has bothered me, since apps that execute
> > in one batchbuffer should end up getting overly penalized.  See
> > intel-throttle-hack of my mesa tree for a possible fix.
>=20
> I like it! I still can't quite figure out what synchronisation issue I
> was running into with my app though. With a single wait_for_rendering /
> synchronisation per frame, I can't quite contrive how the GPU would get
> stalled at all during a sequence of consecutive frames.

I like it too, except for the whole "not just no performance
improvement, but actually penalty on everything I've tried" thing.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkzPIGoACgkQHUdvYGzw6ve1kwCeJkL1xdBdL6qXJzAPxlidh2va
PRwAmgMno8SfWkbN9yLIF8fDC6sf6OYI
=ACKT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--

--===============0510146250==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============0510146250==--