On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:49:49 -0800, Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> Would we want to keep domain tracking if the HW worked correctly and we > didn't have to always flush. It seems like a shame to just gut the code > if it actually could offer a benefit on future generations. That sounds like premature optimization to me. If we want something similar on future hardware, we can resurrect the old code and see what pieces are useful. For now, we're fighting correctness and stability issues, and given the limited (zero? negative?) performance benefits, we just need to get to code which works reliably and provides good performance. The current code has gotten to the 'piles of kludges on kludges' stage, which makes it very fragile -- see the regression caused by changing flushing orders in the VT-d work-around. -- keith.pack...@intel.com
pgp7sZZGywkAo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
