On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:15:15AM +0200, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> It makes sense for a BO to move after a process has requested
> exclusive RW access on it (e.g. because the BO used to be located in
> unmappable VRAM and we intercepted the CPU access from the fault
> handler).
>
> If we let the g
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:15:15AM +0200, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> It makes sense for a BO to move after a process has requested
> exclusive RW access on it (e.g. because the BO used to be located in
> unmappable VRAM and we intercepted the CPU access from the fault
> handler).
>
> If we let the g
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Francisco Jerez
wrote:
> It makes sense for a BO to move after a process has requested
> exclusive RW access on it (e.g. because the BO used to be located in
> unmappable VRAM and we intercepted the CPU access from the fault
> handler).
>
> If we let the ghost obj
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> It makes sense for a BO to move after a process has requested
> exclusive RW access on it (e.g. because the BO used to be located in
> unmappable VRAM and we intercepted the CPU access from the fault
> handler).
>
> If we let the ghost obje
It makes sense for a BO to move after a process has requested
exclusive RW access on it (e.g. because the BO used to be located in
unmappable VRAM and we intercepted the CPU access from the fault
handler).
If we let the ghost object inherit cpu_writers from the original
object, ttm_bo_release_list
It makes sense for a BO to move after a process has requested
exclusive RW access on it (e.g. because the BO used to be located in
unmappable VRAM and we intercepted the CPU access from the fault
handler).
If we let the ghost object inherit cpu_writers from the original
object, ttm_bo_release_list