Am 24.06.2017 um 23:50 schrieb John Brooks:
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 08:20:22PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 24.06.2017 um 01:16 schrieb John Brooks:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
Hi John,
I haven't read your patches. Just a question based on the cover let
Am 24.06.2017 um 20:36 schrieb John Brooks:
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 08:07:15PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 23.06.2017 um 19:39 schrieb John Brooks:
This patch series is intended to improve performance when limited CPU-visible
VRAM is under pressure.
Moving BOs into visible VRAM is essenti
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 08:20:22PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 24.06.2017 um 01:16 schrieb John Brooks:
> >On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> >>Hi John,
> >>
> >>I haven't read your patches. Just a question based on the cover letter.
> >>
> >>I understand that
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 08:07:15PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 23.06.2017 um 19:39 schrieb John Brooks:
> >This patch series is intended to improve performance when limited CPU-visible
> >VRAM is under pressure.
> >
> >Moving BOs into visible VRAM is essentially a housekeeping task. It's fas
Am 24.06.2017 um 01:16 schrieb John Brooks:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
Hi John,
I haven't read your patches. Just a question based on the cover letter.
I understand that visible VRAM is the biggest pain point. But could the
same reasoning make sense for inv
Am 23.06.2017 um 19:39 schrieb John Brooks:
This patch series is intended to improve performance when limited CPU-visible
VRAM is under pressure.
Moving BOs into visible VRAM is essentially a housekeeping task. It's faster to
access them in VRAM than GTT, but it isn't a hard requirement for them
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> I haven't read your patches. Just a question based on the cover letter.
>
> I understand that visible VRAM is the biggest pain point. But could the
> same reasoning make sense for invisible VRAM? That is, doing all the
Hi John,
I haven't read your patches. Just a question based on the cover letter.
I understand that visible VRAM is the biggest pain point. But could the
same reasoning make sense for invisible VRAM? That is, doing all the
migrations to VRAM in a workqueue?
Regards,
Felix
On 17-06-23 01:39 PM
This patch series is intended to improve performance when limited CPU-visible
VRAM is under pressure.
Moving BOs into visible VRAM is essentially a housekeeping task. It's faster to
access them in VRAM than GTT, but it isn't a hard requirement for them to be in
VRAM. As such, it is unnecessary to
