On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:25:58 +0200 Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 31, 08 18:31:45 +0200, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > On Sat, 31 May 2008 14:53:22 +0100 > > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 07:57:32PM +0200, Matthias Hopf wrote: > > > > At least on suspend to RAM many GPUs can probably be programmed to keep > > > > VRAM contents alive. In that case you wouldn't have to save that data > > > > as well. > > > You have to deal with it for suspend to disk, so it's a problem that > > > needs solving regardless. You'll also reduce power consumption if you > > > don't need to keep the VRAM powered. > > Also from discussion i did have keeping vram powered isn't reliable > > accross device it will depends on manufacturer and likely with no > > easy to guess out. > > Agreed with StD and reliability. I don't think power consumption is too > high, especially as it will save quite some time during suspend & resume > (no swapping to main memory, no potential swapping of main memory to > disk first for freeing up space). > You'll only know after measuring, though... > > Matthias > Well i think a good plan is to do the normal path where we evict evrythings and copy to main memory. Once we get that working reliably then we can start experimenting with such path. This will likely make suspend/resume faster. I think we can also easly test how much power the card use when in sleep state. Cheers, Jerome Glisse ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
