On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:52:08 -0800, Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> wrote: > Since we don't differentiate on the different GPU read domains, it > should be safe to allow back to back reads to occur without issuing a > wait (or flush in the non-semaphore case). > > This has the unfortunate side effect that we need to keep track of all > the outstanding buffer reads so that we can synchronize on a write, to > another ring (since we don't know which read finishes first). In other > words, the code is quite simple for two rings, but gets more tricky for > > 2 rings. > > Here is a picture of the solution to the above problem > > Ring 0 Ring 1 Ring 2 > batch 0 batch 1 batch 2 > read buffer A read buffer A wait batch 0 > wait batch 1 > write buffer A > > This code is really untested. I'm hoping for some feedback if this is > worth cleaning up, and testing more thoroughly.
You say it's an optimization -- do you have performance numbers?
pgp0IC8rNeGiA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
