Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Use the right mapping_gfp_mask for final shmem allocation

[Chris Wilson]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:55:16PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ke, 2017-04-05 at 23:15 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Many sightings report the greater prevalence of allocation failures.
> > This is all due to the incorrect use of mapping_gfp_constraint(), so
> > remove it in favour of just querying the mapping_gfp_mask() which are
> > the exact gfp_t we wanted in the first place.
> > 
> > We still do expect a higher chance of reporting ENOMEM, as that is the
> > intention of using __GFP_NORETRY -- to fail rather than oom after having
> > reclaimed from our bo caches, and having done a direct|kswapd reclaim
> > pass.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Jason Ekstrand 
> > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100594
> > Fixes: 24f8e00a8a2e ("drm/i915: Prefer to report ENOMEM rather than incur 
> > the oom for gfx allocations")
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson 
> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen 
> > Cc: Daniel Vetter 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen 

Pushed in shame,
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Use the right mapping_gfp_mask for final shmem allocation

[Joonas Lahtinen]

On ke, 2017-04-05 at 23:15 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Many sightings report the greater prevalence of allocation failures.
> This is all due to the incorrect use of mapping_gfp_constraint(), so
> remove it in favour of just querying the mapping_gfp_mask() which are
> the exact gfp_t we wanted in the first place.
> 
> We still do expect a higher chance of reporting ENOMEM, as that is the
> intention of using __GFP_NORETRY -- to fail rather than oom after having
> reclaimed from our bo caches, and having done a direct|kswapd reclaim
> pass.
> 
> Reported-by: Jason Ekstrand 
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100594
> Fixes: 24f8e00a8a2e ("drm/i915: Prefer to report ENOMEM rather than incur the 
> oom for gfx allocations")
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson 
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen 
> Cc: Daniel Vetter 

Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen 

Regards, Joonas
-- 
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Use the right mapping_gfp_mask for final shmem allocation

[Chris Wilson]

Many sightings report the greater prevalence of allocation failures.
This is all due to the incorrect use of mapping_gfp_constraint(), so
remove it in favour of just querying the mapping_gfp_mask() which are
the exact gfp_t we wanted in the first place.

We still do expect a higher chance of reporting ENOMEM, as that is the
intention of using __GFP_NORETRY -- to fail rather than oom after having
reclaimed from our bo caches, and having done a direct|kswapd reclaim
pass.

Reported-by: Jason Ekstrand 
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100594
Fixes: 24f8e00a8a2e ("drm/i915: Prefer to report ENOMEM rather than incur the 
oom for gfx allocations")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson 
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen 
Cc: Daniel Vetter 
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index 5f911a25e99a..57f51f1dac69 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -2314,7 +2314,7 @@ i915_gem_object_get_pages_gtt(struct drm_i915_gem_object 
*obj)
 * defer the oom here by reporting the ENOMEM back
 * to userspace.
 */
-   reclaim = mapping_gfp_constraint(mapping, 0);
+   reclaim = mapping_gfp_mask(mapping);
reclaim |= __GFP_NORETRY; /* reclaim, but no oom */
 
page = shmem_read_mapping_page_gfp(mapping, i, reclaim);
-- 
2.11.0

___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx