On 04/12/2018 14:15, Chris Wilson wrote:
Ignore trying to shrink from i915 if we fail to acquire the struct_mutex
in the shrinker while performing direct-reclaim. The trade-off being
(much) lower latency for non-i915 clients at an increased risk of being
unable to obtain a page from
Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-12-06 21:30:25)
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-12-06 15:18:13)
> >
> > On 04/12/2018 14:15, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Ignore trying to shrink from i915 if we fail to acquire the struct_mutex
> > > in the shrinker while performing direct-reclaim. The trade-off being
> >
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-12-06 15:18:13)
>
> On 04/12/2018 14:15, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Ignore trying to shrink from i915 if we fail to acquire the struct_mutex
> > in the shrinker while performing direct-reclaim. The trade-off being
> > (much) lower latency for non-i915 clients at an
On 04/12/2018 14:15, Chris Wilson wrote:
Ignore trying to shrink from i915 if we fail to acquire the struct_mutex
in the shrinker while performing direct-reclaim. The trade-off being
(much) lower latency for non-i915 clients at an increased risk of being
unable to obtain a page from
Ignore trying to shrink from i915 if we fail to acquire the struct_mutex
in the shrinker while performing direct-reclaim. The trade-off being
(much) lower latency for non-i915 clients at an increased risk of being
unable to obtain a page from direct-reclaim without hitting the
oom-notifier. The
