Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 05:22:52PM +0100, Francisco Jerez wrote:
Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 01:58:50AM +0100, Francisco Jerez wrote:
Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue,
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 06:34:36PM +0100, Francisco Jerez wrote:
Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 05:22:52PM +0100, Francisco Jerez wrote:
Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 01:58:50AM +0100, Francisco Jerez
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 01:58:50AM +0100, Francisco Jerez wrote:
Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 08:24:26AM +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 18:18 +, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Marcin Slusarz
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 05:22:52PM +0100, Francisco Jerez wrote:
Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 01:58:50AM +0100, Francisco Jerez wrote:
Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 08:24:26AM +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 09:38:04PM +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
Combination of locking and interchannel synchronization changes
uncovered poor behaviour of nouveau_fence_wait, which on HZ=100
configuration could
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 18:18 +, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 09:38:04PM +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
Combination of locking and interchannel synchronization changes
uncovered poor
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 08:24:26AM +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 18:18 +, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 09:38:04PM +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
Combination of locking
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 12:22:56AM +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 08:24:26AM +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 18:18 +, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011
On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 00:27 +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 12:22:56AM +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 08:24:26AM +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 18:18 +, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Marcin Slusarz
Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 08:24:26AM +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 18:18 +, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Marcin Slusarz marcin.slus...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 09:38:04PM +0100,
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 09:38:04PM +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
Combination of locking and interchannel synchronization changes
uncovered poor behaviour of nouveau_fence_wait, which on HZ=100
configuration could waste up to 10 ms per call.
Depending on application, it lead to 10-30% FPS
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 09:38:04PM +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
Combination of locking and interchannel synchronization changes
uncovered poor behaviour of nouveau_fence_wait, which on HZ=100
configuration could waste up to 10 ms per call.
Depending on application, it lead to 10-30% FPS
Combination of locking and interchannel synchronization changes
uncovered poor behaviour of nouveau_fence_wait, which on HZ=100
configuration could waste up to 10 ms per call.
Depending on application, it lead to 10-30% FPS regression.
To fix it, shorten thread sleep time to 0.1 ms and ensure
13 matches
Mail list logo
