Posted May 28, 2008 17:55 UTC (Wed) by keithw (guest, #3127)
Parent article: GEM v. TTM
Note that the benchmark results I posted don't exactly show what is claimed in the article.
In particular, the version of the driver labeled "i915tex" is the original TTM version of the
i915 driver and has good performance, while "master/ttm" is a newer one which seems to have
suffered some degree of performance regression relative to both i915tex and the original
non-ttm version... at least in the couple of machines I've looked at...
To make things even more confusing, it seems that Keith Packard's testing may have revealed
yet another regression in the non-ttm versions of the driver, which I haven't had a chance to
dig into at this point.
All this testing is pretty preliminary & hampered by lack of time & travel schedules, etc.
So, nobody really has all the answers.
Anyway, the biggest win at this point would be getting some sort of a memory manager interface
that everyone agrees on & can move forward with, *providing* that it doesn't encode design
decisions which preclude a properly performant implementation -- and I'm hopeful that's the