[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: GEM-related desktop sluggishness due to linear-time arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown()
Am Dienstag, den 29.03.2011, 11:23 -0400 schrieb Jerome Glisse:
> 2011/3/29 r6144 <>:
> > 在 2011-03-29二的 10:22 -0400,Jerome Glisse写道:
> >
> >> Killer solution would be to have no mapping and a decent
> >> upload/download ioctl that can take userpage.
> >
> > Doesn't this sound like GEM's read/write interface implemented by e.g.
> > the i915 driver? But if I understand correctly, a mmap-like interface
> > should still be necessary if we want to implement e.g. glMapBuffer()
> > without extra copying.
> >
> > r6144
> >
> >
> glMapBuffer should not be use, it's really not a good way to do stuff.
> Anyway the extra copy might be unavoidable given that sometime the
> front/back might either be in unmappable vram or either have memory
> layout that is not the one specify at buffer creation (this is very
> common when using tiling for instance). So even considering MapBuffer
> or a like function i believe it's a lot better to not allow buffer
> mapping in userspace but provide upload/download hooks that can use
> userpage to avoid as much as possible extra copy.
> Cheers,
> Jerome

Wouldn't this give us a performance penalty for short lived resources
like vbo's which are located in GART memory? Mmap allows us to write
directly to this drm controlled portion of sysram. With a copy based
implementation we would have to allocate the buffer in sysram just to
copy it over to another portion of sysram which seems a little insane to
me, but I'm not an expert here.

-- Lucas

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-29 20:03    [W:0.061 / U:2.916 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site