Hello, A subsequent patch has been sent out, and to put my head firmly into a paper bag, what should have been a two dry runs were not dry runs and got sent out; worse, it was sent three times... Sighs. My sincere apologies. Command lines are dangerous. As a side note, I do not know how the 2nd dry was recorded as sent after the correct run.
If people want, I can send it out again with a different subject, but the details of the message are: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2013-November/048257.html [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] nicer-no-wrap-patch Kevin Rogovin kevin.rogovin at intel.com Mon Nov 11 23:26:47 PST 2013 with commit message: "Track bytes written during no flush phases for debug builds " -Kevin ________________________________________ From: Rogovin, Kevin Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 8:39 AM To: mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: RE: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] nicer-no-wrap-patch Hi all, I will later submit a patch taking into account comments, however one comment I will address *now*. Eric Anholt [e...@anholt.net] writes: >Kevin Rogovin <kevin.rogo...@intel.com> writes: > >> This patch adds a function interface for enabling no wrap on batch commands, >>adds to it assert enforcement that the number bytes added to the >> batch buffer does not exceed a passed value and finally this is used >> in brw_try_draw_prims() to help make sure that estimated_max_prim_size >> is a good value. > >I don't like adding overhead to every batch operation. You can just do >an assert like I did in 185b5a54c94ce11487146042c8eec24909187ed6 That approach used in brw_blorp_exec.cpp will not work here because the estimate is (and should be) computed in brw_try_draw_prims() and the assert needs to be done whenever commands or state are added to the batch buffer. Additionally it is literally an overhead or exactly writing one boolean and two integers _per_ draw call. This overhead is literally insignificant next to the overhead of the call stack to reach brw_try_draw_primis(). However, I will make it so that the write to those variables only occurs in debug, since the assert is only for the purpose of debug; going further those members will only exists in debug for that matter. ________________________________________ From: Eric Anholt [e...@anholt.net] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 9:56 PM To: Rogovin, Kevin; mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Rogovin, Kevin Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] nicer-no-wrap-patch Kevin Rogovin <kevin.rogo...@intel.com> writes: > This patch adds a function interface for enabling no wrap on batch commands, > adds to it assert enforcement that the number bytes added to the > batch buffer does not exceed a passed value and finally this is used > in brw_try_draw_prims() to help make sure that estimated_max_prim_size > is a good value. I don't like adding overhead to every batch operation. You can just do an assert like I did in 185b5a54c94ce11487146042c8eec24909187ed6 _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
