Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] tests/gem_userptr_benchmark: Benchmarking userptr surfaces and impact

2014-02-06 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 02/05/2014 05:51 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:33:06PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: From: Tvrtko Ursulin This adds a small benchmark for the new userptr functionality. Apart from basic surface creation and destruction, also tested is the impact of having userptr surf

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] tests/gem_userptr_benchmark: Benchmarking userptr surfaces and impact

2014-02-05 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:33:06PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > From: Tvrtko Ursulin > > This adds a small benchmark for the new userptr functionality. > > Apart from basic surface creation and destruction, also tested is the > impact of having userptr surfaces in the process address space. Re

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] tests/gem_userptr_benchmark: Benchmarking userptr surfaces and impact

2014-02-05 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
From: Tvrtko Ursulin This adds a small benchmark for the new userptr functionality. Apart from basic surface creation and destruction, also tested is the impact of having userptr surfaces in the process address space. Reason for that is the impact of MMU notifiers on common address space operati

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] tests/gem_userptr_benchmark: Benchmarking userptr surfaces and impact

2014-02-05 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
From: Tvrtko Ursulin This adds a small benchmark for the new userptr functionality. Apart from basic surface creation and destruction, also tested is the impact of having userptr surfaces in the process address space. Reason for that is the impact of MMU notifiers on common address space operati