On 12/8/21 10:24, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 08/12/2021 08:39, Thomas Hellström wrote:
On 12/8/21 09:30, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
...
Apart from the code organisation questions, on the practical level
- do you need writeback from the TTM backend or while I am
proposing to remove it from
On 08/12/2021 08:39, Thomas Hellström wrote:
On 12/8/21 09:30, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
...
Apart from the code organisation questions, on the practical level -
do you need writeback from the TTM backend or while I am proposing
to remove it from the "legacy" paths, I can propose removing
On 12/8/21 09:30, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
...
Apart from the code organisation questions, on the practical level -
do you need writeback from the TTM backend or while I am proposing
to remove it from the "legacy" paths, I can propose removing it from
the TTM flow as well?
Yeah, if that
On 07/12/2021 14:05, Matthew Auld wrote:
On 07/12/2021 13:10, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 18/10/2021 10:10, Matthew Auld wrote:
For cached objects we can allocate our pages directly in shmem. This
should make it possible(in a later patch) to utilise the existing
i915-gem shrinker code for such
On 07/12/2021 13:10, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 18/10/2021 10:10, Matthew Auld wrote:
For cached objects we can allocate our pages directly in shmem. This
should make it possible(in a later patch) to utilise the existing
i915-gem shrinker code for such objects. For now this is still disabled.
On 18/10/2021 10:10, Matthew Auld wrote:
For cached objects we can allocate our pages directly in shmem. This
should make it possible(in a later patch) to utilise the existing
i915-gem shrinker code for such objects. For now this is still disabled.
v2(Thomas):
- Add optional
For cached objects we can allocate our pages directly in shmem. This
should make it possible(in a later patch) to utilise the existing
i915-gem shrinker code for such objects. For now this is still disabled.
v2(Thomas):
- Add optional try_to_writeback hook for objects. Importantly we need
