On 16 December 2014 at 08:59, Vadim Girlin <vadimgir...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/16/2014 01:30 AM, Dave Airlie wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> New patch is attached, the only difference is in the sb_sched.cpp (it >>>>> disables copy coalescing for some "unsafe" cases, so it may leave more >>>>> MOVs >>>>> than previously, but I don't think there will be any noticeable effect >>>>> on >>>>> performance). >>>>> >>>>> So far I don't see any problems with it, but I don't have many GL apps >>>>> on >>>>> the test machine. At least lightsmark and unigine demos work for me. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Based on my limited understanding of the code: >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deuc...@amd.com> >>> >>> >>> >>> Alex, thanks for the review, I understand you wanted it to get into mesa >>> release, but it really needs careful testing with more apps, so far I >>> hoped >>> Dave would do it as long as he's looking into these issues anyway. In >>> theory >>> I can also install steam on the test machine and some games, it just >>> needs >>> the time and I'm not sure if I'll find it, so far my main job is >>> sufficient >>> to make me pretty tired. >>> >>> Current scheduler in SB is very fragile after adding handling for all >>> special cases discovered during initial debugging etc, I said since the >>> very >>> beginning that I'd like to rewrite it, if only I had time. So any change >>> like this can potentially break some apps even if piglit passes, and I'm >>> not >>> ready to take responsibility for that if I commit it myself, I just don't >>> have time to deal with all possible consequences on all supported chips. >>> >>> If you think it's ok, just push this patch (it requires revert of the >>> previous Dave's commit 7b0067d2). I'm really sorry that I can't do more >>> to >>> help with it. >> >> >> Myself and Glenn are looking at it, Glenn noticed a piglit regression >> from this yesterday, I'll reproduce today and take a look. > > > Hi, Dave & Glenn, > > Thanks for looking into it. FWIW, when I worked on it I've ran piglit's > quick tests and didn't see any regressions on evergreen (juniper 5750). > There were some failed tests in some piglit runs, but AFAIU they were just > random.
Turns out we had a pre-existing fail that we noticed, not a regression. I'm going to push this, since its better than what is there, we can see if some public testing notices any big issues also. Dave. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
