On 1/6/17 9:14 AM, Matthew Macy wrote:
> > Please try the drm-next branch now. Up until very recently, the
> > shrinkers responsible for culling ttm/gem allocations were never run.
> > I've now implemented the shrinker, but it's driven from vm_lowmem, so
> > you'll probably still see what looks like a leak until you hit low
> > memory conditions. The shrinker should probably be run from
> > uma_timeout, but there isn't an eventhandler for that and I haven't
> > looked any further.
> > -M
> I am now testing the `drm-next` branch, but I'm finding it crashes much
> more frequently (a la
> https://github.com/FreeBSDDesktop/freebsd-base-graphics/issues/96) than
> `drm-next-4.7`. While the 4.7 branch would sometimes only last a few
> minutes, it would sometimes run for a day or more. On `drm-next`,
> however, I think I'm yet to have 20 minutes of uptime. So, I haven't run
> into the memory shrinker yet because I haven't had enough uptime to use
> lots of memory. :) I will continue testing... any specific things I
> ought to be doing?
I just did the merge and it's using a relatively untested new KPI so
regressions aren't too surprising I'm afraid. #96 is more or less content free
in terms of providing useful information. Getting a core + backtrace would be a
lot more helpful. See the repo's wiki for details on improving your odds of
getting a core.
I have found the following has enabled me to catch kernel panic's pretty
reliably on the drm-next branch when i have the i915kms module loaded:
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"