https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98146
--- Comment #20 from Darek Deoniziak ---
After switching on the same system from Unity, compiz and lightdm to gnome3 and
gdm3, updating drivers (oibaf ppa) the remaining issues are almost gone.
1. I do not notice not drawing content in the windo
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 08:00:05PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 23.06.2017 um 19:39 schrieb John Brooks:
> >When the AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_CPU_ACCESS_REQUIRED flag is given by userspace,
> >it should only be treated as a hint to initially place a BO somewhere CPU
> >accessible, rather than having
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 08:20:22PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 24.06.2017 um 01:16 schrieb John Brooks:
> >On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> >>Hi John,
> >>
> >>I haven't read your patches. Just a question based on the cover letter.
> >>
> >>I understand that
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 08:09:56PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 23.06.2017 um 19:39 schrieb John Brooks:
> >amdgpu_ttm_placement_init() callers that are using both VRAM and GTT as
> >domains usually don't want visible VRAM as a busy placement.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: John Brooks
>
> NAK to th
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 08:07:15PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 23.06.2017 um 19:39 schrieb John Brooks:
> >This patch series is intended to improve performance when limited CPU-visible
> >VRAM is under pressure.
> >
> >Moving BOs into visible VRAM is essentially a housekeeping task. It's fas
Am 24.06.2017 um 01:16 schrieb John Brooks:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 05:02:58PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
Hi John,
I haven't read your patches. Just a question based on the cover letter.
I understand that visible VRAM is the biggest pain point. But could the
same reasoning make sense for inv
Am 23.06.2017 um 19:39 schrieb John Brooks:
amdgpu_ttm_placement_init() callers that are using both VRAM and GTT as
domains usually don't want visible VRAM as a busy placement.
Signed-off-by: John Brooks
NAK to this as well. Some callers of amdgpu_ttm_placement_init() have
hard placement lim
Am 23.06.2017 um 19:39 schrieb John Brooks:
This patch series is intended to improve performance when limited CPU-visible
VRAM is under pressure.
Moving BOs into visible VRAM is essentially a housekeeping task. It's faster to
access them in VRAM than GTT, but it isn't a hard requirement for them
Am 23.06.2017 um 19:39 schrieb John Brooks:
When the AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_CPU_ACCESS_REQUIRED flag is given by userspace,
it should only be treated as a hint to initially place a BO somewhere CPU
accessible, rather than having a permanent effect on BO placement.
And that is a clear NAK from my sid
On Sat, 2017-06-24 at 09:18 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:24:28PM -0700, tndave wrote:
> > Thanks for doing this.
> > So archs can still have their own definition for dma_set_mask() if
> > HAVE_ARCH_DMA_SET_MASK is y?
> > (and similarly for dma_set_coherent_mask() wh
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101575
--- Comment #2 from Hi-Angel ---
Created attachment 132216
--> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=132216&action=edit
R600_TRACE lockup at end
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.__
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101575
--- Comment #1 from Hi-Angel ---
Created attachment 132215
--> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=132215&action=edit
R600_TRACE lockup at start
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101575
Bug ID: 101575
Summary: Lockup for executing
trivial-tess-gs_no-gs-inputs.shader_test
Product: Mesa
Version: git
Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64)
OS: Linux (All)
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:24:28PM -0700, tndave wrote:
> Thanks for doing this.
> So archs can still have their own definition for dma_set_mask() if
> HAVE_ARCH_DMA_SET_MASK is y?
> (and similarly for dma_set_coherent_mask() when
> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_DMA_SET_COHERENT_MASK is y)
> Any plan to change
14 matches
Mail list logo