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
 > Hi,
 > 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:



Pete Wright
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to