Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH] nv50, nvc0: don't base decisions on available pushbuf space

2015-10-11 Thread Samuel Pitoiset
I did a full piglit run on Fermi. There are no regressions and you fixed texelFetch tests and other ones which failed with that assert. I'm lazy to do it on Tesla, so: Reviewed-by: Samuel Pitoiset Thanks! On 10/10/2015 11:09 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: We still have

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH] nv50, nvc0: don't base decisions on available pushbuf space

2015-10-10 Thread Samuel Pitoiset
On 10/10/2015 09:42 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: This patch looks fine except that it should be a bit more normalized. I mean, sometimes you break when PUSH_SPACE fails, sometimes not. Same for PUSH_SPACE calls,

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH] nv50, nvc0: don't base decisions on available pushbuf space

2015-10-10 Thread Ilia Mirkin
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: > This patch looks fine except that it should be a bit more normalized. I > mean, sometimes you break when PUSH_SPACE fails, sometimes not. Same for > PUSH_SPACE calls, sometimes you add it sometimes not. Meh. We

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH] nv50, nvc0: don't base decisions on available pushbuf space

2015-10-10 Thread Samuel Pitoiset
This patch looks fine except that it should be a bit more normalized. I mean, sometimes you break when PUSH_SPACE fails, sometimes not. Same for PUSH_SPACE calls, sometimes you add it sometimes not. Did you run a full piglit test this time ? :) See my comment below. On 10/10/2015 11:09 AM,

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH] nv50, nvc0: don't base decisions on available pushbuf space

2015-10-10 Thread Ilia Mirkin
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: > > > On 10/10/2015 09:42 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Samuel Pitoiset >> wrote: >>> >>> This patch looks fine except that it should be a bit more

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH] nv50, nvc0: don't base decisions on available pushbuf space

2015-10-10 Thread Samuel Pitoiset
On 10/10/2015 09:58 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: On 10/10/2015 09:42 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: This patch looks fine except that it

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH] nv50, nvc0: don't base decisions on available pushbuf space

2015-10-10 Thread Ilia Mirkin
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: > > > On 10/10/2015 09:58 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Samuel Pitoiset >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10/10/2015 09:42 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: On Sat,

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH] nv50, nvc0: don't base decisions on available pushbuf space

2015-10-10 Thread Samuel Pitoiset
On 10/10/2015 10:17 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: On 10/10/2015 09:58 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Samuel Pitoiset wrote: On 10/10/2015 09:42 PM, Ilia Mirkin

[Nouveau] [PATCH] nv50, nvc0: don't base decisions on available pushbuf space

2015-10-10 Thread Ilia Mirkin
We still have to push everything out, might as well kick earlier and flip pushbufs when we know we'll need it. This resolves some issues with the new policy of making sure that we always leave a bit of room at the end for fences. Signed-off-by: Ilia Mirkin Cc: