> > It's not clear to me which of the above the r300 & nv people are aiming at, > but in my opinion the latter is such a significant departure from what we > have > been thinking about that I have always believed it should be addressed by a > new > set of interfaces. > > > > My understanding of future hw is that we are heading to virtualized GPU > memory > (IRQ assistance for > page fault).
Yes, of course. This is the vista advanced scheduler and I guess it will be enforced by whql or some other mandatory scheme. Here's a post from 2006 that lays out the concepts: http://blogs.msdn.com/greg_schechter/archive/2006/04/02/566767.aspx The graphics rumour sites suggest that one or more of the IHVs failed to achieve this for the vista deadlines, so it might be a bit of a tough technical problem... My belief is that there are two different problems - buffer based memory managent and page-based virtualized GPU memory, and they should be solved with different implementations and probably different interfaces. Moreover, we should try and get a workable buffer-based scheme for current hardware and then commence navel-gazing to support future cards... delaying an adequate buffer-based memory manager (ttm+cleaner-interface or gem+performance-fixes) to wait for a page-based one doesn't make any sense as the page-based one won't ever work on current cards. The opposite is true, however -- a decent set of buffer-based interfaces will keep working for a long time, giving breathing room to create a page-baed manager later. Keith ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
