On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 08:40:10AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 09:37:35AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 07:50:45AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 07:51:34PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > @@ -2227,6 +2223,9 @@ i915_gem_object_move_to_inactive(struct > > > > drm_i915_gem_object *obj) > > > > list_move_tail(&vma->mm_list, > > > > &vm->inactive_list); > > > > } > > > > > > > > + if (obj->frontbuffer_bits) > > > > + intel_fb_flush(obj, true); > > > > + > > > > list_del_init(&obj->ring_list); > > > > obj->ring = NULL; > > > > > > > > @@ -3556,6 +3555,8 @@ i915_gem_object_flush_gtt_write_domain(struct > > > > drm_i915_gem_object *obj) > > > > old_write_domain = obj->base.write_domain; > > > > obj->base.write_domain = 0; > > > > > > > > + intel_fb_flush(obj, false); > > > > + > > > I think it is worth the if (obj->frontbuffer_bit) check everywhere. > > > > Well it's the first thing fb_flush checks, so the additional ones are just > > stupid micro-optimizations I guess. Should I remove them everywhere? > > Yes. The most frequent of these would be in execbuffer, so perhaps keep > that one. But the rest are equally in the noise.
Equally, move-to-inactive. Slightly less hit than execbuffer, but often enough to make me concerned. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
