On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 June 2016 at 16:46, Bas Nieuwenhuizen <b...@basnieuwenhuizen.nl> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 06.06.2016 00:28, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote: >>>> >>>> This fixes a problem with the CE preamble and restoring only stuff in the >>>> preamble when needed. >>>> >>>> To illustrate suppose we have two graphics IB's 1 and 2, which are >>>> submitted in >>>> that order. Furthermore suppose IB 1 does not use CE ram, but IB 2 does, >>>> and we >>>> have a context switch at the start of IB 1, but not between IB 1 and IB 2. >>>> >>>> The old code put the CE RAM loads in the preamble of IB 2. As the preamble >>>> of >>>> IB 1 does not have the loads and the preamble of IB 2 does not get >>>> executed, the >>>> old values are not load into CE RAM. >>>> >>>> Fix this by always restoring the entire CE RAM. >>> >>> >>> Nice catch! >>> >>> Have you considered restoring from the desc->buffers instead? The >>> double-dump seems a bit redundant. But maybe it's easier this way... >>> >>> Also, do we really need to dump the entire CE RAM? After initializing the >>> descriptor sets, we should know exactly how much we need... >> >> We can do both. >> >> However, wrt using the desc->buffers, note that this results in 21 >> loads (and adding potentially multiple buffers to the CS bo list) >> while the current approach is 1 load >> and 1 store. Furthermore the CE is <= 15% busy in pretty much all >> games I tried, as measured by polling CP_STAT.CE_BUSY. As such I >> haven't really considered optimizing this GPU side and I'm not really >> sure if it is worth it in this case to do a bit more work on the CPU >> to avoid some work on the GPU. >> >> Though I'm probably overthinking this given how small an impact the >> whole CE stuff had on performance and we're now talking about a per IB >> cost instead of per draw. >> > Gents, double-checking: > The patch has been superseded (with > 54f755fa0fda14c578022767bcef2f27b2e89707?), correct ?
Correct for master. For 12.0 it has been superseded by 28294573c737ff762b1c3f8d58bc78ddd010feca. - Bas > > Thanks > Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
