On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 13:17 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > But again let me stress that application that want to be in control will > > stay in control. If you want to make the decission yourself about where > > things should end up then nothing in all we are proposing will preclude > > you from doing that. Please just think about others people application, > > not just yours, they are a lot of others thing in the world and they do > > not want to be as close to the metal as you want to be. We just want to > > accomodate the largest number of use case. > > What I think you want to do is to automatize something that should not be > automatized and cannot be automatized for performance reasons. You don't know that. > Anyone > wanting performance (and that is the prime reason to use a GPU) would > switch this off because the latencies are otherwise not controllable and > those may impact performance severely. There are typically multiple > parallel strands of executing that must execute with similar performance > in order to allow a data exchange at defined intervals. That is no longer > possible if you add variances that come with the "transparency" here. Stop trying to apply your unique usage model to the entire world :-) Ben. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>