http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15881
--- Comment #4 from Gordon Jin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-05-18 23:10:38 PST ---
Brian, any comments?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the a
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13358
Erik Boettcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> All the good that's done us and our users. After more than *5 years* of
> various memory manager efforts we can't support basic OpenGL 1.0 (yes,
> 1.0) functionality in a performant manner (i.e., glCopyTexImage and
> friends). We have to get over this "it has to be perfect or it will
> neve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Airlie wrote:
|> I honestly don't see a problem with having multiple memory managers. We
|> have different hardware with different functionality and different
|> performance characteristics. The probability of one memory manager
|> fitting every
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15203
--- Comment #36 from Arren Lex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-05-18 18:17:47 PST ---
Interestingly enough, I don't experience a lockup when running this test case
on an X300SE, either before or after this patch (commit
0a96173cc38e506728d4c3f2dd383b
>
> I honestly don't see a problem with having multiple memory managers. We
> have different hardware with different functionality and different
> performance characteristics. The probability of one memory manager
> fitting everywhere is nil. Quite frankly, the fact that it has take
> this long
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephane Marchesin wrote:
| Yes, that was really my point. If the memory manager we use (whatever
| it is) does not allow this kind of behaviour, that'll force all cards
| to use a kernel-validated command submission model, which might not be
| too fa
On 5/18/08, Thomas Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What you fail to notice here is that I think most people intend to
> > have only one memory manager in the kernel.
>
>
> How on earth can you draw that conclusion from the above statement?
>
Well, Dave has been saying this to me al
On 5/18/08, Thomas Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, that was really my point. If the memory manager we use (whatever
> > it is) does not allow this kind of behaviour, that'll force all cards
> > to use a kernel-validated command submission model, which might not be
> > too fast, a
Stephane Marchesin wrote:
>> Jerome, Dave, Keith
>>
>> It's hard to argue against people trying things out and finding it's not
>> really what they want, so I'm not going to do that.
>>
>> The biggest argument (apart from the fencing) seems to be that people
>> thinks TTM stops them from doing
Stephane Marchesin wrote:
> On 5/16/08, Pekka Paalanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:05:18 +0200
>> Jerome Glisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > My current understanding is that on newer GPU each client got its
>> > own memory address space on the GPU. I can manag
>
> Jerome, Dave, Keith
>
> It's hard to argue against people trying things out and finding it's not
> really what they want, so I'm not going to do that.
>
> The biggest argument (apart from the fencing) seems to be that people
> thinks TTM stops them from doing what they want with the hardwar
On 5/16/08, Pekka Paalanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:05:18 +0200
> Jerome Glisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > My current understanding is that on newer GPU each client got its
> > own memory address space on the GPU. I can manage this space
> > transparently based
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10744
Summary: REGRESSION: video driver stuck after screen blank
Product: Drivers
Version: 2.5
KernelVersion: 2.6.26-rc
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Tree: Mainline
Status
14 matches
Mail list logo
