The Mesa developers have been plugging away to get Mesa 17.1 into shape for release, one feature in particular has seen a lot of attention: the shader cache. It will no longer use a percentage of available disk space.
The Mesa developer Timothy Arceri said:
Going by the commit itself, it will be sticking to a 1GB size for the cache now. It's already landed in Mesa git, so it should be in the 17.1 release.
Mesa 17.1 is due for release on May 5th next month, as detailed here. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
The Mesa developer Timothy Arceri said:
QuoteThe more I think about it the more this seems like a bad idea. When we were deleting old cache dirs this wasn't so bad as it was unlikely we would ever hit the actual limit before things
were cleaned up. Now that we only start cleaning up old cache items once the limit is reached the a percentage based max cache limit is more risky.
For the inital release of shader cache I think its better to stick to a more conservative cache limit, at least until we have some way of cleaning up the cache more aggressively.
Going by the commit itself, it will be sticking to a 1GB size for the cache now. It's already landed in Mesa git, so it should be in the 17.1 release.
Mesa 17.1 is due for release on May 5th next month, as detailed here. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: liamdaweMay be read my post again. That was not my point.Quoting: operaNot sure if GOL really needs to cover that kind of low level implementation details of graphics drivers.We have covered stuff like this plenty of times in the past and you're the first to make a complaint about it. Usually, people appreciate it.
I agree that the scope of driver functions is very interesting but the actual size of particular driver cache is a little too deep from my point of view.
I was complaining about a news that covers a low level implementation detail that concerns more a developer. As a gamer it has no big impact whether the cache size is a relative value of 10%, 5% or an absolut value of 1 gb. It's just a small configuration issue. It works either way.
On the other hand I appreciate news about Mesa implementing new features (like the news in the past) because these increase an actual feature set which has a much higher impact.
0 Likes
Quoting: operaLike I said, we have covered details like this plenty of times in the past.Quoting: liamdaweMay be read my post again. That was not my point.Quoting: operaNot sure if GOL really needs to cover that kind of low level implementation details of graphics drivers.We have covered stuff like this plenty of times in the past and you're the first to make a complaint about it. Usually, people appreciate it.
I agree that the scope of driver functions is very interesting but the actual size of particular driver cache is a little too deep from my point of view.
I was complaining about a news that covers a low level implementation detail that concerns more a developer. As a gamer it has no big impact whether the cache size is a relative value of 10%, 5% or an absolut value of 1 gb. It's just a small configuration issue. It works either way.
On the other hand I appreciate news about Mesa implementing new features (like the news in the past) because these increase an actual feature set which has a much higher impact.
I understand what you're saying, but GOL has a big reach, currently LifeOnLinux (or "LOL) does not, so for now it's still suited for here.
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me