similar to: No subject

It seems that Noveau is assuming that once the FIFO pointer is past a command, that command has finished executing, and all the buffers it used are no longer needed. However, this seems to be false at least on G71. In particular, the card may not have even finished reading the input vertex buffers when the pushbuffer "fence" triggers. While Mesa does not reuse the buffer object itself,

Fixes GART leak (as accounted by nouveau_drm.gem.gart_available). Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz at gmail.com> --- Running glxinfo in a loop is enough to trigger it - after several thousand runs (depending on GART size), X server crashes and does not come back in a correct state (corruptions and crashes). With this patch applied, it's possible again to do full piglit

http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25806 Summary: NV40 vertex corruption (kernel BO deletion too early?) Product: Mesa Version: git Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Drivers/DRI/nouveau AssignedTo: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org

This patch changes the pushbuffer ABI to: 1. No longer use/expose nouveau_pushbuffer. Everything is directly in nouveau_channel. This saves the extra "pushbuf" pointer dereference. 2. Use cur/end pointers instead of tracking the remaining size. Pushing data now only needs to alter cur and not both cur and remaining. The goal is to make the *_RING macros faster and make the

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 01:18:01PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > Oddly enough, I am not getting any measurable performance difference > with this patch applied and using examples/threaded-reads-and-writes > coupled with nbdkit. My explanation is that in the common case, once > a server has something to send, it is going to send the entire reply > as fast as it can, rather than sending

I am trying to figure out why the ttm_bo_vm_fault is stitching pages from the GART instead of the pages allocated via DRM_NOUVEAU_GEM_NEW. And also why OUR_RINGp is writing 16, 256 and 512 bytes of zero filled data *1 in the GART? Perhaps I should mention that I know _why_ it is taking the pages from the GART and giving them to the userland - but I don't know if that is correct way of doing

- NV30 and NV40 need testing. - I'll take better naming suggestions for so_get_push_reloc(). --- src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nouveau_stateobj.h | 49 +++++++++++++++++++----- src/gallium/drivers/nv04/nv04_surface_2d.c | 9 +++- src/gallium/drivers/nv30/nv30_state_emit.c | 26 ++++++++++++ src/gallium/drivers/nv40/nv40_state_emit.c | 30 ++++++++++++++

I didn't file an Issue as I understand the cause and have a successful patch that I've been running here for several days. gitlab.freedesktop.org is RO (ie, I can't fork/stage a PR there) so I committed the absurdity of creating a PR on the public gitlab mirror in order to have a URL to point to: https://gitlab.com/freedesktop-mirror/drm/-/merge_requests/1 copypasting the commit

When processing a server reply within the REPLY subgroup, we will often hit a situation where recv() requires us to block until the next NotifyRead. But since NotifyRead is the only permitted external action while in this group, we are effectively blocking CmdIssue and NotifyWrite events from happening until the server finishes the in-progress reply, even though those events have no strict

Hello all again, take 2. Over in D68651 I would like to make code that attempt to saturate an value (using higher bitwidth integers) use a saturating intrinsic instead. Something like this: https://godbolt.org/z/9knBnP As can be seen, the unsigned cases are already being matched to llvm.uadd.sat intrinsics. I am hoping to extend that to the signed cases. This has numerous benefits including

Hi. There's not much to say here, just replacing the screen_init stateobj with direct pushbuffer emission. We don't need to store all the usless state from init, and the constant buffer relocations which currently don't work if the addresses change (because the method CB_DEF_SET isn't among them (not an address)) become effective. Thoughts, ack / nack ? Thanks, Christoph

Am 20.05.20 um 18:25 schrieb Michel D?nzer: > On 2020-05-20 4:43 p.m., Christian K?nig wrote: >> Am 13.05.20 um 13:03 schrieb Christian K?nig: >>> Unfortunately AGP is still to widely used as we could just drop >>> support for using its GART. >>> >>> Not using the AGP GART also doesn't mean a loss in functionality since >>> drivers will

Am 20.05.20 um 18:18 schrieb Alex Deucher: > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:43 AM Christian K?nig > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: >> Am 13.05.20 um 13:03 schrieb Christian K?nig: >>> Unfortunately AGP is still to widely used as we could just drop support for using its GART. >>> >>> Not using the AGP GART also doesn't mean a loss in

On 2020-05-20 4:43 p.m., Christian K?nig wrote: > Am 13.05.20 um 13:03 schrieb Christian K?nig: >> Unfortunately AGP is still to widely used as we could just drop >> support for using its GART. >> >> Not using the AGP GART also doesn't mean a loss in functionality since >> drivers will just fallback to the driver specific PCI GART. >> >> For now

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:11 AM, me22 <me22.ca at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:48, Jonas Paulsson <jnspaulsson at hotmail.com> wrote: >> May I ask then, what could one expect from various optimizations when using >> intrinsics to support the fixed point type? LTO, Value optimizations, mem ?? >> > > Can you not just lower your fixed-point

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:43 AM Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > Am 13.05.20 um 13:03 schrieb Christian K?nig: > > Unfortunately AGP is still to widely used as we could just drop support for using its GART. > > > > Not using the AGP GART also doesn't mean a loss in functionality since drivers will just fallback to the driver

Am 13.05.20 um 13:03 schrieb Christian K?nig: > Unfortunately AGP is still to widely used as we could just drop support for using its GART. > > Not using the AGP GART also doesn't mean a loss in functionality since drivers will just fallback to the driver specific PCI GART. > > For now just deprecate the code and don't enable the AGP GART in TTM even when general AGP support

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:33 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > A couple of questions: > > 1) Should this really be an intrinsic and not a flag on add? The add > instruction already allows overflow to be either undefined or defined to > wrap. Making it defined to saturate seems a natural extension. > I don't think this should be a flag on

Am 12.05.20 um 23:12 schrieb Alex Deucher: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:52 PM Roy Spliet <nouveau at spliet.org> wrote: >> Op 12-05-2020 om 14:36 schreef Alex Deucher: >>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:16 AM Michel D?nzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote: >>>> On 2020-05-11 10:12 p.m., Alex Deucher wrote: >>>>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:17 PM

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 8, 2009, at 5:54 PM, Paul Schlie wrote: >> Are overflow behavior tags meant to enable the specification of a >> particular instruction's required or presumed overflow behavior? > > I'm not sure what you mean. The overflow tags specify what happens if > overflow happens (defined wrapping, defined saturating, or undefined > behavior),