Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> writes: > On 09/26/2013 02:31 PM, Paul Berry wrote: > [snip] >> However, there are two things which I expected to see in this patch >> series but I didn't: >> >> - Do atomic_uints need similar handling to >> ir_sampler_replacement_visitor in opt_function_inlining? >> >> - Do we need to update schedule_node::set_latency_gen7() with an >> estimate of how long it takes to execute an atomic operation? Currently >> it looks like it's assuming 14 cycles, which seems almost certainly wrong. > > If I recall correctly, atomic operations are considered barriers for the > purposes of scheduling, so I don't think their latency really matters. > It would be nice to add it eventually (either Matt or Eric should have > the shader_time tricks needed to determine how many cycles it takes).
The work is already done, see [1]. Thanks. [1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2013-October/045601.html
pgpjnDhqGwzqw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
