From: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com
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
From: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com
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
On 04/23/2014 06:17 PM, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
[snip]
+static int gem_userptr(int fd, void *ptr, int size, int read_only, uint32_t
*handle)
+{
+ struct local_i915_gem_userptr userptr;
+ int ret;
+
+ userptr.user_ptr = (uintptr_t)ptr;
+ userptr.user_size = size;
+
Reviewed-by: Brad Volkin bradley.d.vol...@intel.com
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:07:32AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com
This adds a small benchmark for the new userptr functionality.
Apart from basic surface creation and destruction, also tested is
Hi Brad,
On 04/18/2014 12:18 AM, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 04:13:06AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com
This adds a small benchmark for the new userptr functionality.
Apart from basic surface creation and destruction, also
[snip]
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 06:28:54AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 04/18/2014 12:18 AM, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 04:13:06AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
+static void **handle_ptr_map;
+static unsigned int num_handle_ptr_map;
I'd prefer that we explicitly
From: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com
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
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:38:35PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com
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
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 04:18:46PM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 04:13:06AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
+ bo_ptr = (char *)(((unsigned long)ptr + (PAGE_SIZE - 1))
+~(PAGE_SIZE - 1));
You might add an ALIGN macro in this file
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 04:13:06AM -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com
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
From: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com
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
From: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
