On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 1:35 AM Felix Kuehling wrote:
>
> Am 2020-06-11 um 10:15 a.m. schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:34:30AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> I still have my doubts about allowing fence waiting from within shrinkers.
> >>> IMO ideally they should use a
Use WARN to print messages with backtrace when evictions are triggered.
This can help determine the root cause of evictions and help spot driver
bugs triggering evictions unintentionally, or help with performance tuning
by avoiding conditions that cause evictions in a specific workload.
The
The existing code used the major version number of the DRM driver
instead of the device major number of the DRM subsystem for
validating access for a devices cgroup.
This meant that accesses allowed by the devices cgroup weren't
permitted and certain accesses denied by the devices cgroup were
Am 2020-06-11 um 10:15 a.m. schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:34:30AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> I still have my doubts about allowing fence waiting from within shrinkers.
>>> IMO ideally they should use a trywait approach, in order to allow memory
>>> allocation during
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 09:41:01PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> fs_reclaim_acquire/release nicely catch recursion issues when
> allocating GFP_KERNEL memory against shrinkers (which gpu drivers tend
> to use to keep the excessive caches in check). For mmu notifier
> recursions we do have lockdep
Am 2020-06-11 um 4:11 p.m. schrieb Lorenz Brun:
> The existing code used the major version number of the DRM driver
> instead of the device major number of the DRM subsystem for
> validating access for a devices cgroup.
>
> This meant that accesses allowed by the devices cgroup weren't
> permitted
On 6/10/20 5:16 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:30 PM Thomas Hellström (Intel)
wrote:
On 6/10/20 5:30 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 04:05:04PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 10.06.20 um 15:54 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
On 6/10/20 6:15 AM, Thomas
On 6/11/20 2:35 AM, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
On 6/10/20 11:19 PM, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 6/10/20 4:30 PM, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
On 6/10/20 5:30 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 04:05:04PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 10.06.20 um 15:54 schrieb
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:29 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
>
>
> On 11/06/2020 12:29, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:36 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
> > wrote:
> >> On 10/06/2020 16:17, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:22 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
> >>> wrote:
>
>
>
On 11/06/2020 12:29, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:36 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
> wrote:
>> On 10/06/2020 16:17, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:22 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
>>> wrote:
On 04/06/2020 09:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Design is similar to the
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:34:30AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > I still have my doubts about allowing fence waiting from within shrinkers.
> > IMO ideally they should use a trywait approach, in order to allow memory
> > allocation during command submission for drivers that
> > publish fences
[AMD Public Use]
Hi Dennis,
Sorry for confusion brought by the commit message. I will update patch v2 later.
Regards,
Guchun
-Original Message-
From: Li, Dennis
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 6:57 PM
To: Chen, Guchun ; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Zhang,
Hawking ; Zhou1, Tao ; Pan,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 7:58 AM Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> Even though they are technically MMIO registers I put the bits with the sqind
> block
> for organizational purposes.
>
> Requested for UMR debugging.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tom St Denis
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher
> ---
>
I didn't check the patch details, if it is for existing implicit sync of
shared buffer, feel free go ahead.
But if you add some description for its usage, that will be more clear
to others.
-David
在 2020/6/11 15:19, Marek Olšák 写道:
Hi David,
Explicit sync has nothing to do with this. This
Even though they are technically MMIO registers I put the bits with the sqind
block
for organizational purposes.
Requested for UMR debugging.
Signed-off-by: Tom St Denis
---
.../include/asic_reg/gc/gc_10_1_0_offset.h| 3 ++-
.../include/asic_reg/gc/gc_10_1_0_sh_mask.h | 16
Reviewed-by: Leo Liu
On 2020-06-10 12:36 p.m., James Zhu wrote:
Fix race condition issue when multiple jpeg starts are called.
Signed-off-by: James Zhu
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_jpeg.c | 16
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_jpeg.h | 2 ++
2 files changed,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:36 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
>
>
> On 10/06/2020 16:17, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:22 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 04/06/2020 09:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> Design is similar to the lockdep annotations for workers, but with
>
[AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only]
Hi, Guchun,
The ras_manager obj will save the error counters in every querying,
therefore the previous querying shouldn't affect the result of current
querying. Please check the function: amdgpu_ras_error_query.
Best Regards
Dennis Li
On 10/06/2020 16:17, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:22 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/06/2020 09:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> Design is similar to the lockdep annotations for workers, but with
>>> some twists:
>>>
>>> - We use a read-lock for the
Almost error count registers are automatically cleared
after reading once, so both CE and UE count needs to be
read in one loop.
Signed-off-by: Guchun Chen
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ctx.c | 16 +++-
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c | 14 +-
Op 05-06-2020 om 15:29 schreef Daniel Vetter:
> Design is similar to the lockdep annotations for workers, but with
> some twists:
>
> - We use a read-lock for the execution/worker/completion side, so that
> this explicit annotation can be more liberally sprinkled around.
> With read locks
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 09:44, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 18:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Introducing a global lockmap that cannot capture the rules correctly,
>
> Can you document the rules all drivers should be following then,
> because from here it looks to get refactored
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 18:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-06-04 09:12:09)
> > Design is similar to the lockdep annotations for workers, but with
> > some twists:
> >
> > - We use a read-lock for the execution/worker/completion side, so that
> > this explicit annotation
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 09:30:12AM +0200, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
>
> On 6/4/20 10:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Two in one go:
> > - it is allowed to call dma_fence_wait() while holding a
> >dma_resv_lock(). This is fundamental to how eviction works with ttm,
> >so required.
>
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 08:12:37AM +0200, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
>
> On 6/10/20 11:16 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:30 PM Thomas Hellström (Intel)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 6/10/20 5:30 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 04:05:04PM +0200,
Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-06-04 09:12:09)
> Design is similar to the lockdep annotations for workers, but with
> some twists:
>
> - We use a read-lock for the execution/worker/completion side, so that
> this explicit annotation can be more liberally sprinkled around.
> With read locks
On 6/4/20 10:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
Two in one go:
- it is allowed to call dma_fence_wait() while holding a
dma_resv_lock(). This is fundamental to how eviction works with ttm,
so required.
- it is allowed to call dma_fence_wait() from memory reclaim contexts,
specifically from
Hi David,
Explicit sync has nothing to do with this. This is for implicit sync, which
is required by DRI3. This fix allows removing existing inefficiencies from
drivers, so it's a good thing.
Marek
On Wed., Jun. 10, 2020, 03:56 Chunming Zhou, wrote:
>
> 在 2020/6/10 15:41, Christian König 写道:
On 6/10/20 11:19 PM, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
On 6/10/20 4:30 PM, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
On 6/10/20 5:30 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 04:05:04PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 10.06.20 um 15:54 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
On 6/10/20 6:15 AM, Thomas Hellström
Acked-by: Monk.Liu
_
Monk Liu|GPU Virtualization Team |AMD
-Original Message-
From: amd-gfx On Behalf Of Emily Deng
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 2:02 PM
To: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Deng, Emily
Subject: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu/sriov: Need to
As will clear vf fw during unload driver, to avoid idle fail. Need
to clear KIQ portion also.
Signed-off-by: Emily Deng
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v10_0.c | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v10_0.c
31 matches
Mail list logo
