Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Memory on graphics card

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
    Hmm, does it happen often then that you have to access the memory directly with CPU instead of being able to deal with stuff through GPU? Got an example use case for the interested reader?
    Any time you want to use the CPU to read or write to something in vram; for example software rendering for unsupported operations.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by agd5f View Post
      Any time you want to use the CPU to read or write to something in vram; for example software rendering for unsupported operations.
      But for normal usage, say for playing hardware-accelerated 3D games or desktop work etc., the graphics card does use all its available memory, right? For both the open-source drivers and Catalyst?

      I've got a 512MB X1950 Pro (R500) and in a couple of days a 512MB HD 4550 (R700) will arrive. These are for normal desktop usage; no software-only stuff. I'm not limited to 256MB video RAM for these cards, am I? Doesn't the GPU use all available graphics memory unless you're trying to do something clever like any of the aforementioned scenarios?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by nightmorph View Post
        But for normal usage, say for playing hardware-accelerated 3D games or desktop work etc., the graphics card does use all its available memory, right? For both the open-source drivers and Catalyst?
        Catalyst yes, open source not yet. The kernel memory manager work that's going on now is needed to address this.

        Originally posted by nightmorph View Post
        I've got a 512MB X1950 Pro (R500) and in a couple of days a 512MB HD 4550 (R700) will arrive. These are for normal desktop usage; no software-only stuff. I'm not limited to 256MB video RAM for these cards, am I? Doesn't the GPU use all available graphics memory unless you're trying to do something clever like any of the aforementioned scenarios?
        Lots of things are drawn with software under normal desktop usage.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by nightmorph View Post
          But for normal usage, say for playing hardware-accelerated 3D games or desktop work etc., the graphics card does use all its available memory, right? For both the open-source drivers and Catalyst?

          I've got a 512MB X1950 Pro (R500) and in a couple of days a 512MB HD 4550 (R700) will arrive. These are for normal desktop usage; no software-only stuff. I'm not limited to 256MB video RAM for these cards, am I? Doesn't the GPU use all available graphics memory unless you're trying to do something clever like any of the aforementioned scenarios?
          On my ATI HD 3650 I get (Xorg.0.log):
          Code:
          (II) RADEON(0): Detected total video RAM=524288K, accessible=262144K (PCI BAR=262144K)
          (--) RADEON(0): Mapped VideoRAM: 262144 kByte (128 bit DDR SDRAM)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by agd5f View Post
            Catalyst yes, open source not yet. The kernel memory manager work that's going on now is needed to address this.
            Hmm. Well, the work has been progressing rather rapidly; my understanding is that there's a branch or two of GEM/TTM-like stuff now available for checkout, though it's not stable. Besides, for normal 2D usage, including browsing, documents, watching videos, it's not like the full 512MB of the card would be needed.

            I've no doubt that sometime soonish we'll have a memory manager that enables the rest of the video RAM. All ya'll upstream folks have been making fantastic progress. Thanks!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by agd5f View Post
              The logic for dealing with non-CPU accessible memory still needs to be added. It's on the todo list.
              Just tested the code on F12. I think this kind of works. There is some corruption, but I don't see the driCannotAllocateTexture messages. So, is the logic in place now. Any other way I can test it?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by kadambi View Post
                So, is the logic in place now. Any other way I can test it?
                Not yet. However, with KMS the CPU accessible memory is a shared pool so any client that needs it can access it. Prior to KMS, memory was statically allocated to certain things.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by agd5f View Post
                  Not yet. However, with KMS the CPU accessible memory is a shared pool so any client that needs it can access it. Prior to KMS, memory was statically allocated to certain things.
                  Just got F13. Still see the same behavior as F12. So, I assume its not fully done yet?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    probably soon(tm)

                    I advise you not to hold your breath.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      2.6.35 has the code to handle non-CPU accessible vram.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Great! When Fedora pulls it in, I will test and report back.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          January 2011:

                          Originally posted by kadambi
                          Just got F14, it works! (mostly)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by agd5f View Post
                            2.6.35 has the code to handle non-CPU accessible vram.
                            Wow! Does this mean the phram module can be used to access the whole vram (and not only the prefetchable one lspci reports)? Thanks

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by kbios View Post
                              Wow! Does this mean the phram module can be used to access the whole vram (and not only the prefetchable one lspci reports)? Thanks
                              To my understand phram can only use mappable memory, so no phram won't be able to access beyond bar size. That being said using vram as swap or other thing like that is one of the badest idea you can come up with, it would be lot better if you just buy more ram.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by glisse View Post
                                To my understand phram can only use mappable memory, so no phram won't be able to access beyond bar size. That being said using vram as swap or other thing like that is one of the badest idea you can come up with, it would be lot better if you just buy more ram.
                                Sorry, can you explain me why? Having 2 video cards the second one is wasted when I don't need two monitors, so using it at least for its memory would be good IMHO.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X