On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 23:18, Maarten Maathuis <[email protected]> wrote: > 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). >
Yeah, things like initial pixmap placement and migration hints still make sense in a system with kernel memory management. And you can't guess the right placement or migration decisions in the kernel, user space has a better view of the situation. The current system lets us figure those out nicely. Stéphane _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
