From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: FBC patchset Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:57:03 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1310124163-12177-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <20120117161817.GP4093@phenom.ffwll.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF1B9E776 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:57:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120117161817.GP4093@phenom.ffwll.local> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Daniel Vetter , Eugeni Dodonov Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:18:17 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > I've just noticed that we seem to miss this plug to fix fbc issues. Care > to resend a proper patch in case we still need this? > > Also, I we could try to also disable fbc when we detect frontbuffer > rendering (and generally abolish setting up the fence to detect such > writes), maybe that helps with our fbc troubles (if it's actually worth > it). Eugeni? I'm testing whether disabling fbc when fb is busy helps on my troublesome SNB. But X can and will still access the scanout through a fence, so we can't simply abolish setting up fences here. The other recourse is to always used a shadow buffer so that we never access the scanout directly, and perhaps restrict that to only use render as well. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre