Hi Peter,
Good news is that I got our opengl test running on your x86/mm branch.
The commit a2b4306c50b5de2ca955cd73ac57c2ac6426ee15 (current tip of
x86/mm) is good. For sanity I jumped back and found this commit
a2aa52ab16efbee40ad118ebac4a5e438f5b43ee doesn't work.
Thanks,
Tom
On
Hi Peter,
Good news is that I got our opengl test running on your x86/mm branch.
The commit a2b4306c50b5de2ca955cd73ac57c2ac6426ee15 (current tip of
x86/mm) is good. For sanity I jumped back and found this commit
a2aa52ab16efbee40ad118ebac4a5e438f5b43ee doesn't work.
Thanks,
Tom
On
Hi Peter,
After updating my UMDs (mesa/etc) over the weekend I cannot reproduce
the bug to begin with. I'll try jumping directly to the intersection
and see if I can reproduce the fault there otherwise I'll have to
rollback my umds.
Hopefully I can test this tomorrow.
Tom
On 2018-12-03
Hi Peter,
After updating my UMDs (mesa/etc) over the weekend I cannot reproduce
the bug to begin with. I'll try jumping directly to the intersection
and see if I can reproduce the fault there otherwise I'll have to
rollback my umds.
Hopefully I can test this tomorrow.
Tom
On 2018-12-03
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:19:46PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> NAK I get a failure in TTM on init with your x86/mm branch (see attached
> dmesg).
So the good news is that with some additional self-tests I can trivially
reproduce this. The bad news is that an otherwise straight forward
cleanup
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:19:46PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> NAK I get a failure in TTM on init with your x86/mm branch (see attached
> dmesg).
So the good news is that with some additional self-tests I can trivially
reproduce this. The bad news is that an otherwise straight forward
cleanup
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 05:49:34PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> On 2018-11-30 12:48 p.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:19:46PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> >> On 2018-11-30 10:31 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >>> I pushed them out to:
> >>>
> >>>
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 05:49:34PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> On 2018-11-30 12:48 p.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:19:46PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> >> On 2018-11-30 10:31 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >>> I pushed them out to:
> >>>
> >>>
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:27:02PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> I can apply the patch you attached but the inline patches just don't
> apply. Could be my imap client (thunderbird) mangled them but I've
> applied patches this way before. could you attach them instead please?
That's arguably a
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:27:02PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> I can apply the patch you attached but the inline patches just don't
> apply. Could be my imap client (thunderbird) mangled them but I've
> applied patches this way before. could you attach them instead please?
That's arguably a
On 2018-11-30 12:48 p.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:19:46PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
>> On 2018-11-30 10:31 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>> I pushed them out to:
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git x86/mm
>>>
>>> I hope that
On 2018-11-30 12:48 p.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:19:46PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
>> On 2018-11-30 10:31 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>> I pushed them out to:
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git x86/mm
>>>
>>> I hope that
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:19:46PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> On 2018-11-30 10:31 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I pushed them out to:
> >
> >git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git x86/mm
> >
> > I hope that works; I'm out for a few hours, but should check on
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:19:46PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> On 2018-11-30 10:31 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I pushed them out to:
> >
> >git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git x86/mm
> >
> > I hope that works; I'm out for a few hours, but should check on
On 2018-11-30 10:31 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:23:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> Hurm.. no. They apply cleanly to Linus' tree here.
>>
>> linux-2.6$ git describe
>> v4.20-rc4-156-g94f371cb7394
>> linux-2.6$ quilt push 4
>> Applying patch
On 2018-11-30 10:31 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:23:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> Hurm.. no. They apply cleanly to Linus' tree here.
>>
>> linux-2.6$ git describe
>> v4.20-rc4-156-g94f371cb7394
>> linux-2.6$ quilt push 4
>> Applying patch
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:23:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hurm.. no. They apply cleanly to Linus' tree here.
>
> linux-2.6$ git describe
> v4.20-rc4-156-g94f371cb7394
> linux-2.6$ quilt push 4
> Applying patch patches/peterz-cpa-addr.patch
> patching file arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
>
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 04:23:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hurm.. no. They apply cleanly to Linus' tree here.
>
> linux-2.6$ git describe
> v4.20-rc4-156-g94f371cb7394
> linux-2.6$ quilt push 4
> Applying patch patches/peterz-cpa-addr.patch
> patching file arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
>
On 2018-11-30 10:23 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:30PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
>> On 2018-11-30 10:09 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:52:26PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
Hi Peter,
Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of
On 2018-11-30 10:23 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:30PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
>> On 2018-11-30 10:09 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:52:26PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
Hi Peter,
Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:30PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> On 2018-11-30 10:09 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:52:26PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of our drm-next the first patch
> >> fails.
> >
> >
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:30PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> On 2018-11-30 10:09 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:52:26PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of our drm-next the first patch
> >> fails.
> >
> >
On 2018-11-30 10:09 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:52:26PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of our drm-next the first patch
>> fails.
>
> Against what tree would you like the patches? rebasing should not be
> hard I
On 2018-11-30 10:09 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:52:26PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of our drm-next the first patch
>> fails.
>
> Against what tree would you like the patches? rebasing should not be
> hard I
On 2018-11-30 10:09 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:52:26PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of our drm-next the first patch
>> fails.
>
> Against what tree would you like the patches? rebasing should not be
> hard I
On 2018-11-30 10:09 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:52:26PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of our drm-next the first patch
>> fails.
>
> Against what tree would you like the patches? rebasing should not be
> hard I
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:52:26PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of our drm-next the first patch
> fails.
Against what tree would you like the patches? rebasing should not be
hard I think.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:52:26PM +, StDenis, Tom wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of our drm-next the first patch
> fails.
Against what tree would you like the patches? rebasing should not be
hard I think.
org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Deucher, Alexander
> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86/mm/cpa: Fix cpa-array TLB invalidation
> Hi Peter,
>
> Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of our drm-next the first patch
> fails.
>
> Alex: could we rebase again at some point?
>
org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Deucher, Alexander
> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86/mm/cpa: Fix cpa-array TLB invalidation
> Hi Peter,
>
> Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of our drm-next the first patch
> fails.
>
> Alex: could we rebase again at some point?
>
Hi Peter,
Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of our drm-next the first patch
fails.
Alex: could we rebase again at some point?
Tom
On 2018-11-30 8:44 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yesterday Tom reported a CPA bug triggered by the AMDGPU team.
>
> It turns out that with commit:
Hi Peter,
Unfortunately I can't apply this on top of our drm-next the first patch
fails.
Alex: could we rebase again at some point?
Tom
On 2018-11-30 8:44 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yesterday Tom reported a CPA bug triggered by the AMDGPU team.
>
> It turns out that with commit:
Hi,
Yesterday Tom reported a CPA bug triggered by the AMDGPU team.
It turns out that with commit:
a7295fd53c39 ("x86/mm/cpa: Use flush_tlb_kernel_range()")
I misread the cpa array code and messed up the TLB invalidations for it. These
patches (hopefully) fix the issue while also shrinking
Hi,
Yesterday Tom reported a CPA bug triggered by the AMDGPU team.
It turns out that with commit:
a7295fd53c39 ("x86/mm/cpa: Use flush_tlb_kernel_range()")
I misread the cpa array code and messed up the TLB invalidations for it. These
patches (hopefully) fix the issue while also shrinking
34 matches
Mail list logo
