On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 09:28 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: > Hi. > > I have a couple of question w r t the TTM vs GEM discussion: > > 1) How does pwrite() avoid clflush()es or wbinvd()s in the i915 gem case?
It doesn't, but as pwrite uses non-temporal stores, the clflush doesn't affect the cache at all. Of course, if we had to use wbinvd, this would completely wreck performance. > 2) Some people have stated that GPU page faults could not be implemented > with TTM. > We've certainly dealt with that type of hardware, but found no obvious > reason to use that feature. It seems like it would be nicer to deal with memory on a page-by-page basis; evicting pages instead of whole objects. It would require a page table between GPU and vram to be useful, and then you still get to deal with the GPU address space allocation adventure. > Could someone tell me why this feature can't be used with TTM (or is it > that it can't be used with the current TTM driver interface?) and also > a typical use-case where it might be beneficial within either the GEM or > TTM context? Certainly moving from object management to page management would simplify handling of the GPU memory space, but I'm not sure how making these objects demand-paged would help all that much. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
-- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
