On 12/16/2014 05:44 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
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.
Thanks, Dave. I'm really sorry that I can't pay as much attention to
that code as I'd like, and I really appreciate your and Glenn's efforts
for maintaining it.
(In case if someone thinks it's my fault, I must remind, I warned that I
won't be able to support it even before it was merged. So please don't
blame me :) ).
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
