[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] [RFC] intel: Non-LLC based non-blocking maps.

2012-06-19 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:13:20 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:22:03 +0100 > Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:38:15 -0700, Ben Widawsky > > wrote: > > > The history on this patch goes back quite a way. This time around, the > > > patch builds on top of the map

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] [RFC] intel: Non-LLC based non-blocking maps.

2012-06-19 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:13:20 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:22:03 +0100 > Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:38:15 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > The history on this patch goes back quite a way. This time around, the > > > patch builds on top of the map_unsy

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] [RFC] intel: Non-LLC based non-blocking maps.

2012-06-19 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:38:15 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > The history on this patch goes back quite a way. This time around, the > patch builds on top of the map_unsynchronized that Eric pushed. Eric's > patch attempted only to solve the problem for LLC machines. Unlike > my earlier versions of th

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] [RFC] intel: Non-LLC based non-blocking maps.

2012-06-19 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:22:03 +0100 Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:38:15 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > The history on this patch goes back quite a way. This time around, the > > patch builds on top of the map_unsynchronized that Eric pushed. Eric's > > patch attempted only to solve

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] [RFC] intel: Non-LLC based non-blocking maps.

2012-06-19 Thread Ben Widawsky
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:22:03 +0100 Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:38:15 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > The history on this patch goes back quite a way. This time around, the > > patch builds on top of the map_unsynchronized that Eric pushed. Eric's > > patch attempted only to solve

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] [RFC] intel: Non-LLC based non-blocking maps.

2012-06-19 Thread Chris Wilson
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:38:15 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > The history on this patch goes back quite a way. This time around, the > patch builds on top of the map_unsynchronized that Eric pushed. Eric's > patch attempted only to solve the problem for LLC machines. Unlike > my earlier versions of th

[PATCH] [RFC] intel: Non-LLC based non-blocking maps.

2012-06-18 Thread Ben Widawsky
The history on this patch goes back quite a way. This time around, the patch builds on top of the map_unsynchronized that Eric pushed. Eric's patch attempted only to solve the problem for LLC machines. Unlike my earlier versions of this patch (with the help from Daniel Vetter), we do not attempt to

[PATCH] [RFC] intel: Non-LLC based non-blocking maps.

2012-06-18 Thread Ben Widawsky
The history on this patch goes back quite a way. This time around, the patch builds on top of the map_unsynchronized that Eric pushed. Eric's patch attempted only to solve the problem for LLC machines. Unlike my earlier versions of this patch (with the help from Daniel Vetter), we do not attempt to