On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:59:29 -0700 Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:00:16 -0700, Jesse Barnes <jbar...@virtuousgeek.org> > wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:59:23 -0700 > > Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote: > > > > > + /* Just flush everything for now */ > > > + flags |= PIPE_CONTROL_WC_FLUSH; > > > + flags |= PIPE_CONTROL_IS_FLUSH; > > > + flags |= PIPE_CONTROL_TC_FLUSH; > > > + flags |= PIPE_CONTROL_DEPTH_FLUSH; > > > + flags |= PIPE_CONTROL_VFC; > > > > This is the only bit I'd like to see changed. While we still have the > > domain tracking code we may as well try to honor it and limit our > > flushing here like we do with MI_FLUSH. > > > > Unless someone has a "remove all domain tracking" patch already posted > > that is. :) > > I don't think we "might as well try to honor it". Working out the > workarounds for various combinations is difficult to do even for a fixed > set of bits. Let's not make the workarounds more complicated by varying > them, when experiments showed no evidence for removing bits improving > performance. Oh if you have experiments showing that the individual bits provide no benefit that's fine. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
