Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2018-08-31 12:32:23) > On 31/08/2018 12:22, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2018-08-31 12:16:19) > >> We would need a fairly recent kernel (drm-tip?) to test this in CI. > > Unpatched mesa, assumes all is fine. > > Post-patch mesa, assumes all is broken. > > > > So we can quickly see if anything actually fails if a persistent GGTT > > mmap is rejected. Which is the important part for determining if such > > exclusion will harm anyone. The problem is then is the risk of > > corruption worth keeping it around. > > > >> I can't see any issue with this because we always have the meta path as > >> a fallback for tiled buffers. > > I'm worried if the mmap actually leaks through to glMapBufferRange with > > say GL_MAP_PERSISTENT_BIT. Hmm, maybe that's all ok so long at the > > client flushes are explicit. > > > As far as I can tell, buffers are linear, so brw_bo_map() wouldn't even > try to map in gtt at first. > > Then brw_bo_map_wc() would assert if it failed. > > So we're fine? :)
I like that plan. Not having to rely on GGTT will save a lot of headaches. -Chris _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
