On to, 2016-08-04 at 11:42 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 01:36:24PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> >
> > On ma, 2016-08-01 at 19:22 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > We don't need to incur the overhead of checking whether the object is
> > > pinned prior to changing i
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 01:36:24PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ma, 2016-08-01 at 19:22 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > We don't need to incur the overhead of checking whether the object is
> > pinned prior to changing its madvise. If the object is pinned, the
> > madvise will not take effect
On ma, 2016-08-01 at 19:22 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> We don't need to incur the overhead of checking whether the object is
> pinned prior to changing its madvise. If the object is pinned, the
> madvise will not take effect until it is unpinned and so we cannot free
> the pages being pointed at b
We don't need to incur the overhead of checking whether the object is
pinned prior to changing its madvise. If the object is pinned, the
madvise will not take effect until it is unpinned and so we cannot free
the pages being pointed at by hardware. Marking a pinned object with
allocated pages as DO
