On Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:22 pm Nick Piggin wrote:
quoted text
> > However, when other DRM drivers get around to doing memory management,
> > I'm sure they'll also be interested in an ioremap_wc that doesn't eat
> > ipi costs.  For us, the ipis for flushing were eating over 10% of CPU
> > time.  If your patch series cuts that cost, we could drop this piece at
> > that point.
>
> It can cut the cost quite significantly on normal vmap/vunmap loads I
> tested. Whether it will work as well on your workload, I don't know
> but I would have liked to find out. I raised this issue quite a while
> back, so I'm disappointed it had not been tried...

I think Eric has code with the vmap changes now?

Given our discussions at KS/Plumbers would you be ok with acking these 
patches?  Or do you want a repost so you can check out the vmap stuff?

After talking a bit more about it, I think we agreed that the ioctl interface 
is actually a better approach then trying to shoehorn this stuff into system 
calls, so aside from the vmap code (which could be done in 2.6.29 or whenever 
the vmap stuff lands) I think this patchset is pretty close to what we want 
in drm-next now...

Thanks,
Jesse
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/