On Thursday, December 13, 2018 5:00:43 PM PST Rafael Antognolli wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 04:27:31PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 11:15:28 AM PDT Rafael Antognolli wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:32:54PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > > > On
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 04:27:31PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 11:15:28 AM PDT Rafael Antognolli wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:32:54PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 29, 2018 10:19:54 AM PDT Rafael Antognolli wrote:
> > > Do we
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 11:15:28 AM PDT Rafael Antognolli wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:32:54PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > On Monday, October 29, 2018 10:19:54 AM PDT Rafael Antognolli wrote:
> > Do we need any stalling when whacking CS_CHICKEN1...?
>
> Hmmm... there's this:
>
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:32:54PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Monday, October 29, 2018 10:19:54 AM PDT Rafael Antognolli wrote:
> > Gen9 hardware requires some workarounds to disable preemption depending
> > on the type of primitive being emitted.
> >
> > We implement this by adding a new
On Monday, October 29, 2018 10:19:54 AM PDT Rafael Antognolli wrote:
> Gen9 hardware requires some workarounds to disable preemption depending
> on the type of primitive being emitted.
>
> We implement this by adding a new atom that tracks BRW_NEW_PRIMITIVE.
> Whenever it happens, we check the
Gen9 hardware requires some workarounds to disable preemption depending
on the type of primitive being emitted.
We implement this by adding a new atom that tracks BRW_NEW_PRIMITIVE.
Whenever it happens, we check the current type of primitive and
enable/disable object preemption.
For now, we just
