On 01/12/2016 10:57, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 10:49:31AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 01/12/2016 10:26, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 10:06:25AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 01/12/2016 09:46, Chris Wilson wrote:
Move the GuC invalidation of its ggtt
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 10:49:31AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 01/12/2016 10:26, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 10:06:25AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>
> >>On 01/12/2016 09:46, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>Move the GuC invalidation of its ggtt TLB to where we perform the
On 01/12/2016 10:26, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 10:06:25AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 01/12/2016 09:46, Chris Wilson wrote:
Move the GuC invalidation of its ggtt TLB to where we perform the ggtt
modification rather than proliferate it into all the callers of the
insert
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 10:06:25AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 01/12/2016 09:46, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >Move the GuC invalidation of its ggtt TLB to where we perform the ggtt
> >modification rather than proliferate it into all the callers of the
> >insert (which may or may not in fact
On 01/12/2016 09:46, Chris Wilson wrote:
Move the GuC invalidation of its ggtt TLB to where we perform the ggtt
modification rather than proliferate it into all the callers of the
insert (which may or may not in fact have to do the insertion).
v2: Just do the guc invalidate unconditionally,
