Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755198AbYLHFZ2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 00:25:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751181AbYLHFZP (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 00:25:15 -0500 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:59645 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750834AbYLHFZO (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 00:25:14 -0500 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Robert Hancock Subject: Re: IO space memcpy support for userspace. Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:24:58 -0600 Message-ID: <493CAFAA.6010107@shaw.ca> References: <21d7e9970812041940h29994c60w3e7bcf20b96efe04@mail.gmail.com> <119aab440812050932h9173a4bm79273b7ea8fe9a3a@mail.gmail.com> <20081205.122238.12303228.davem@davemloft.net> <21d7e9970812052234u58586957y83d618eea295e0f7@mail.gmail.com> <119aab440812060807i8ca0583pdf9aa3b15bdc54fd@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s0106000c41bb86e1.ss.shawcable.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) In-Reply-To: <119aab440812060807i8ca0583pdf9aa3b15bdc54fd@mail.gmail.com> Cc: libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1830 Lines: 35 Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Dave Airlie wrote: >> Its a real pain in the ass with dynamic buffer objects, we don't want userspace >> to care where they are located, the kernel migrates them in/out of >> video memory, GART, local RAM etc. >> >> However I suspect I just need on these platforms to ban any CPU >> accesses to pixmaps in VRAM. However >> sw fallbacks to the front buffer will always need these accesses. >> >> Its going to be a real pain getting any traction this stuff upstream >> (X.org/Mesa) where the world is x86 and maybe the odd powerpc, having >> to do special accessors for shithouse hw is never going to be fun. > > Is there no case on x86 when this matters? > > What about ARM, ColdFire or MIPS? On x86, assuming the kernel hasn't done stupid things like map memory ranges with conflicting memory types, etc. then no, it doesn't matter what instructions you use to beat on the memory range, which is as it should be. If this IA64 case is as described by Dave this really sounds like a case of a brain damaged platform IMHO.. having memory-mapped ranges where using certain instructions to write to them locks the machine is just ridiculous. This sounds like one of those cases where a hardware designer pawns off a particular case as "software can deal with it" and causes the software people 10 times as much aggravation as they saved themselves.. > > As the embedded market continues to grow I hope to see X.org/Mesa on > more hardware with different memory access rules. > > Cheers, > Carlos. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/