On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 07:11:46PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:49:05AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> > What specifically are you thinking in terms of implementing busy tracking
> > in the pool? The idea with adding the shadow object to the request was just
> > to get
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:49:05AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 09:52:52AM -0700, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 09:36:14AM -0700, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Brad Volkin
> > >
> > > This patch sets up all of the tracking and copying
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 09:52:52AM -0700, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 09:36:14AM -0700, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Brad Volkin
> >
> > This patch sets up all of the tracking and copying necessary to
> > use batch pools with the command parser, but does not actua
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 09:36:14AM -0700, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Brad Volkin
>
> This patch sets up all of the tracking and copying necessary to
> use batch pools with the command parser, but does not actually
> dispatch the copied (shadow) batch to the hardware yet. We still
>
From: Brad Volkin
This patch sets up all of the tracking and copying necessary to
use batch pools with the command parser, but does not actually
dispatch the copied (shadow) batch to the hardware yet. We still
aren't quite ready to set the secure bit during dispatch.
Note that performance takes
