On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 03:13:51PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 13/10/2016 13:59, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:29:44PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>On 13/10/2016 09:55, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>If the user requests a mappable binding to the global GTT, we will first
On 13/10/2016 13:59, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:29:44PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 13/10/2016 09:55, Chris Wilson wrote:
If the user requests a mappable binding to the global GTT, we will first
unbind an existing mapping if it doesn't match. We will unbind even if
ther
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:29:44PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 13/10/2016 09:55, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >If the user requests a mappable binding to the global GTT, we will first
> >unbind an existing mapping if it doesn't match. We will unbind even if
> >there is no possibility that the obj
On 13/10/2016 09:55, Chris Wilson wrote:
If the user requests a mappable binding to the global GTT, we will first
unbind an existing mapping if it doesn't match. We will unbind even if
there is no possibility that the object can fit in the mappable
aperture. This may lead to a ping-pong migratio
