Am Samstag, den 09.07.2011, 09:25 +0100 schrieb Chris Wilson: Whoever pushes this, please correct
s/Seperate/Separate/ in the commit summary. > In order to correctly account for reserving space in the GTT and fences > for a batch buffer, we need to independently track whether the fence is > pinned due to a fenced GPU access in the batch from from whether the > buffer is pinned in the aperture. Currently we count the fenced as »the fenced« sounds strange. Probably I need to read up the code to grasp that. Or is the »d« at the end a typo? > pinned if the buffer has already been seen in the execbuffer. This leads > to a false accounting of available fence registers, causing frequent > mass evictions. Worse, if coupled with the change to make > i915_gem_object_get_fence() report EDADLK upon fence starvation, the > batchbuffer can fail with only one fence required... > > Fixes intel-gpu-tools/tests/gem_fenced_exec_thrash > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38735 > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> > Tested-by: Paul Neumann <paul1...@yahoo.de> […] Thanks, Paul
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
