On 16 Jun 11 00:06, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 15 June 2011 23:39:58 Larry Bassel wrote: > > On 15 Jun 11 10:36, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > > On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:42 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday 14 June 2011 20:58:25 Zach Pfeffer wrote: > > > > > I've seen this split bank allocation in Qualcomm and TI SoCs, with > > > > > Samsung, that makes 3 major SoC vendors (I would be surprised if > > > > > Nvidia didn't also need to do this) - so I think some configurable > > > > > method to control allocations is necessarily. The chips can't do > > > > > decode without it (and by can't do I mean 1080P and higher decode is > > > > > not functionally useful). Far from special, this would appear to be > > > > > the default. > > > > We at Qualcomm have some platforms that have memory of different > > performance characteristics, some drivers will need a way of > > specifying that they need fast memory for an allocation (and would prefer > > an error if it is not available rather than a fallback to slower > > memory). It would also be bad if allocators who don't need fast > > memory got it "accidentally", depriving those who really need it. > > Can you describe how the memory areas differ specifically? > Is there one that is always faster but very small, or are there > just specific circumstances under which some memory is faster than > another? One is always faster, but very small (generally 2-10% the size of "normal" memory). Larry -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>