On 23.07.2014 15:42, Christian K?nig wrote:
> Am 23.07.2014 05:54, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>> On 21.07.2014 17:07, Christian K?nig wrote:
>>> Am 19.07.2014 03:15, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
On 19.07.2014 00:47, Christian K?nig wrote:
> Am 18.07.2014 05:07, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
[PATCH
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On 23.07.2014 15:42, Christian K?nig wrote:
>> Am 23.07.2014 05:54, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>>> On 21.07.2014 17:07, Christian K?nig wrote:
Am 19.07.2014 03:15, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
> On 19.07.2014 00:47, Christian K?nig wrote:
On 21.07.2014 17:07, Christian K?nig wrote:
> Am 19.07.2014 03:15, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>> On 19.07.2014 00:47, Christian K?nig wrote:
>>> Am 18.07.2014 05:07, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>> [PATCH 5/5] drm/radeon: Use VRAM for indirect buffers on >= SI
> I'm still not very keen with this chan
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> On 21.07.2014 17:07, Christian K?nig wrote:
>> Am 19.07.2014 03:15, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>>> On 19.07.2014 00:47, Christian K?nig wrote:
Am 18.07.2014 05:07, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>>> [PATCH 5/5] drm/radeon: Use VRAM for indirect
Am 23.07.2014 09:21, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
> On 23.07.2014 15:42, Christian K?nig wrote:
>> Am 23.07.2014 05:54, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>>> On 21.07.2014 17:07, Christian K?nig wrote:
Am 19.07.2014 03:15, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
> On 19.07.2014 00:47, Christian K?nig wrote:
>> Am 18.07
Am 23.07.2014 05:54, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
> On 21.07.2014 17:07, Christian K?nig wrote:
>> Am 19.07.2014 03:15, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>>> On 19.07.2014 00:47, Christian K?nig wrote:
Am 18.07.2014 05:07, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>>> [PATCH 5/5] drm/radeon: Use VRAM for indirect buffers on
Am 19.07.2014 03:15, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
> On 19.07.2014 00:47, Christian K?nig wrote:
>> Am 18.07.2014 05:07, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
> [PATCH 5/5] drm/radeon: Use VRAM for indirect buffers on >= SI
I'm still not very keen with this change since I still don't understand
the reason
On 19.07.2014 00:47, Christian K?nig wrote:
> Am 18.07.2014 05:07, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
[PATCH 5/5] drm/radeon: Use VRAM for indirect buffers on >= SI
>>> I'm still not very keen with this change since I still don't understand
>>> the reason why it's faster than with GTT. Definitely needs mo
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Marek Ol??k wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> Am 18.07.2014 05:07, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>
> [PATCH 5/5] drm/radeon: Use VRAM for indirect buffers on >= SI
I'm still not very keen with this change since I stil
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> Am 18.07.2014 05:07, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
[PATCH 5/5] drm/radeon: Use VRAM for indirect buffers on >= SI
>>>
>>> I'm still not very keen with this change since I still don't understand
>>> the reason why it's faster than with GT
On 18.07.2014 12:58, Dieter N?tzel wrote:
> Am 18.07.2014 05:07, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>> On 17.07.2014 19:09, Christian K?nig wrote:
>>> Am 17.07.2014 12:01, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
[PATCH 5/5] drm/radeon: Use VRAM for indirect buffers on >= SI
>>>
>>> I'm still not very keen with this change
Am 18.07.2014 05:07, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>>> [PATCH 5/5] drm/radeon: Use VRAM for indirect buffers on >= SI
>> I'm still not very keen with this change since I still don't understand
>> the reason why it's faster than with GTT. Definitely needs more testing
>> on a wider range of systems.
> Sure
On 17.07.2014 19:09, Christian K?nig wrote:
> Am 17.07.2014 12:01, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>> In order to try and improve X(Shm)PutImage performance with glamor, I
>> implemented support for write-combined CPU mappings of BOs in GTT.
>>
>> This did provide a nice speedup, but to my surprise, using V
Am 18.07.2014 05:07, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
> On 17.07.2014 19:09, Christian K?nig wrote:
>> Am 17.07.2014 12:01, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>>> In order to try and improve X(Shm)PutImage performance with glamor, I
>>> implemented support for write-combined CPU mappings of BOs in GTT.
>>>
>>> This did
In order to try and improve X(Shm)PutImage performance with glamor, I
implemented support for write-combined CPU mappings of BOs in GTT.
This did provide a nice speedup, but to my surprise, using VRAM instead
of write-combined GTT turned out to be even faster in general on my
Kaveri machine, both
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> Mesa patches:
>
> [PATCH 1/5] winsys/radeon: Use separate caching buffer managers for
> [PATCH 2/5] r600g/radeonsi: Use write-combined CPU mappings of some
> [PATCH 3/5] r600g/radeonsi: Prefer VRAM for CPU -> GPU streaming
For these 3 patch
Am 17.07.2014 12:01, schrieb Michel D?nzer:
> In order to try and improve X(Shm)PutImage performance with glamor, I
> implemented support for write-combined CPU mappings of BOs in GTT.
>
> This did provide a nice speedup, but to my surprise, using VRAM instead
> of write-combined GTT turned out to
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> In order to try and improve X(Shm)PutImage performance with glamor, I
> implemented support for write-combined CPU mappings of BOs in GTT.
>
> This did provide a nice speedup, but to my surprise, using VRAM instead
> of write-combined GTT tur
18 matches
Mail list logo