On 08.05.2012 16:55, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> Still i don't want to loop more than necessary, it's bad, i am ok with :
> http://people.freedesktop.org/~glisse/reset5/0001-drm-radeon-multiple-ring-allocator-v3.patch
>
> If there is fence signaled it will retry 2 times at most, otherwise it
> will go t
On 08.05.2012 16:55, Jerome Glisse wrote:
Still i don't want to loop more than necessary, it's bad, i am ok with :
http://people.freedesktop.org/~glisse/reset5/0001-drm-radeon-multiple-ring-allocator-v3.patch
If there is fence signaled it will retry 2 times at most, otherwise it
will go to wait
On 07.05.2012 23:28, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> On 07.05.2012 20:52, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jerome Glisse
>>> wrote:
> On 07.05.2012 17:23, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>> Your patch here can enter in in
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 07.05.2012 23:28, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Christian K?nig
>> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07.05.2012 20:52, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jerome Glisse
?wrote:
>>
>>
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Christian König wrote:
> On 07.05.2012 23:28, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07.05.2012 20:52, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jerome Glisse
wrote:
>>
>> O
On 07.05.2012 23:28, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Christian König wrote:
On 07.05.2012 20:52, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jerome Glissewrote:
On 07.05.2012 17:23, Jerome Glisse wrote:
Your patch here can enter in infinite loop and never re
On 07.05.2012 20:52, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>> On 07.05.2012 17:23, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> A startover with a new idea for a multiple ring allocator.
> Should perform as
On 07.05.2012 17:23, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Christian K?nig
> wrote:
>> A startover with a new idea for a multiple ring allocator.
>> Should perform as well as a normal ring allocator as long
>> as only one ring does somthing, but falls back to a more
>> complex al
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> On 07.05.2012 20:52, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jerome Glisse ?wrote:
On 07.05.2012 17:23, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Christian
> K?nig
> ?wrote:
>>
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>> On 07.05.2012 17:23, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Christian K?nig
>>> ?wrote:
A startover with a new idea for a multiple ring allocator.
Should perform as well as a normal ring allocator as long
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Christian König wrote:
> On 07.05.2012 20:52, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On 07.05.2012 17:23, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Christian
> König
> wrote:
>>
> On 07.05.2012 17:23, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Christian K?nig
>> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> A startover with a new idea for a multiple ring allocator.
>>> Should perform as well as a normal ring allocator as long
>>> as only one ring does somthing, but falls back to a more
A startover with a new idea for a multiple ring allocator.
Should perform as well as a normal ring allocator as long
as only one ring does somthing, but falls back to a more
complex algorithm if more complex things start to happen.
We store the last allocated bo in last, we always try to allocate
On 07.05.2012 20:52, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On 07.05.2012 17:23, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Christian König
wrote:
A startover with a new idea for a multiple ring allocator.
Should perform as well as a normal ring
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>> On 07.05.2012 17:23, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Christian König
>>> wrote:
A startover with a new idea for a multiple ring allocator.
Should perform as well as a normal ring allocator as long
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Christian K?nig
wrote:
> A startover with a new idea for a multiple ring allocator.
> Should perform as well as a normal ring allocator as long
> as only one ring does somthing, but falls back to a more
> complex algorithm if more complex things start to happen.
>
> On 07.05.2012 17:23, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> A startover with a new idea for a multiple ring allocator.
>>> Should perform as well as a normal ring allocator as long
>>> as only one ring does somthing, but falls back to a more
On 07.05.2012 17:23, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Christian König wrote:
A startover with a new idea for a multiple ring allocator.
Should perform as well as a normal ring allocator as long
as only one ring does somthing, but falls back to a more
complex algorithm if mor
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Christian König wrote:
> A startover with a new idea for a multiple ring allocator.
> Should perform as well as a normal ring allocator as long
> as only one ring does somthing, but falls back to a more
> complex algorithm if more complex things start to happen.
>
>
A startover with a new idea for a multiple ring allocator.
Should perform as well as a normal ring allocator as long
as only one ring does somthing, but falls back to a more
complex algorithm if more complex things start to happen.
We store the last allocated bo in last, we always try to allocate
20 matches
Mail list logo
