On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Keith Packard <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 16:04 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > >> So, your kernel memory manager is done then? > > My point was that we've demonstrated for several years that the legacy > user-mode memory management stuff is pretty much unworkable. Instead of > investing any time attempting to make it go faster, we should simply > make it work correctly and then work on switching drivers to kernel-mode > memory management. > > -- > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > xorg-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel > >
I personally think that exa's memory manager isn't stupid, it's just unsuited to non-linear memory. Improving existing code has the nice side effect of knowing what bottlenecks exist, since you'll most likely encounter them again when switching to a more sophisticated memory manager. It's quite possible that intel uma's perform poorly in combination with exa_offscreen/migration, but that doesn't make it horrible for other hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of the optimisations in classic exa also make it into future memory managers (obviously on the userspace side of things). Maarten. _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
