On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 02:29 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 01:58 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > OK. I'm not too excited here -- 10% of 2% of the CPU time doesn't get
> > > me to the 10% loss that the slow path added up to. Most of the cost is
> > > in k{un,}map_atomic of the returned pages.
> >
> > Also note that doing large gup() with gup_fast() will be undesirable due
> > to it disabling IRQs. So iterating say several MB worth of pages will
> > hurt like crazy. Currently all gup_fast() users do a single page lookup.
>
> Also, what's this weird facination with 32bit, can you even buy a 32bit
> only cpu these days?I work on OpenGL. Many people using OpenGL want to play commercial games. Commercial games are 32-bit. sysprof doesn't work for 32-on-64, so I'd lose a critical tool. Thus, 32-only. keithp runs 32-on-64, and just about every day we're working together, we lament that he can't run sysprof on his box. Getting ~10% of my CPU back by going 32-on-64 would be nice, but it's not worth not being able to usefully profile. -- Eric Anholt e...@anholt.net eric.anh...@intel.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
