On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:18:02AM +, Michel Thierry wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 6:57 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:49:52PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:34:13PM +, Michel Thierry wrote:
> >>>We detected if objects should be moved to the
On 12/11/2015 6:57 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:49:52PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:34:13PM +, Michel Thierry wrote:
We detected if objects should be moved to the lower parts when 48-bit
support flag was not set, but not the other way
We detected if objects should be moved to the lower parts when 48-bit
support flag was not set, but not the other way around.
This handles the case in which an object was allocated in the 32-bit
address range, but it has been marked as safe to move above it, which
theoretically would help to keep
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:34:13PM +, Michel Thierry wrote:
> We detected if objects should be moved to the lower parts when 48-bit
> support flag was not set, but not the other way around.
>
> This handles the case in which an object was allocated in the 32-bit
> address range, but it has
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:49:52PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:34:13PM +, Michel Thierry wrote:
> > We detected if objects should be moved to the lower parts when 48-bit
> > support flag was not set, but not the other way around.
> >
> > This handles the case in
