On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:26:02AM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 01.12.2016, 15:11 +0100 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > Let's also CC Marek
> >
> > On Thu 01-12-16 08:43:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 12/01/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:26:02AM +0100, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 01.12.2016, 15:11 +0100 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > Let's also CC Marek
> >
> > On Thu 01-12-16 08:43:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 12/01/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The
Am Donnerstag, den 01.12.2016, 15:11 +0100 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> Let's also CC Marek
>
> On Thu 01-12-16 08:43:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 12/01/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The email thread starts more or less here
> > >
Am Donnerstag, den 01.12.2016, 15:11 +0100 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> Let's also CC Marek
>
> On Thu 01-12-16 08:43:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 12/01/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The email thread starts more or less here
> > >
On 12/01/2016 10:02 PM, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
I am not familiar with this code so I cannot really argue but a quick
look at rmem_cma_setup doesn't suggest any speicific placing or
anything...
early_cma parses ‘cma’ command line argument which can
On 12/01/2016 10:02 PM, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
I am not familiar with this code so I cannot really argue but a quick
look at rmem_cma_setup doesn't suggest any speicific placing or
anything...
early_cma parses ‘cma’ command line argument which can
On Thu, Dec 01 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I am not familiar with this code so I cannot really argue but a quick
> look at rmem_cma_setup doesn't suggest any speicific placing or
> anything...
early_cma parses ‘cma’ command line argument which can specify where
exactly the default CMA area is to
On Thu, Dec 01 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I am not familiar with this code so I cannot really argue but a quick
> look at rmem_cma_setup doesn't suggest any speicific placing or
> anything...
early_cma parses ‘cma’ command line argument which can specify where
exactly the default CMA area is to
On Thu 01-12-16 17:03:52, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Let's also CC Marek
> >
> > On Thu 01-12-16 08:43:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 12/01/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> > Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The email thread starts more or less here
>
On Thu 01-12-16 17:03:52, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Let's also CC Marek
> >
> > On Thu 01-12-16 08:43:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 12/01/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> > Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The email thread starts more or less here
>
On Thu, Dec 01 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Let's also CC Marek
>
> On Thu 01-12-16 08:43:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 12/01/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The email thread starts more or less here
>> >
On Thu, Dec 01 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Let's also CC Marek
>
> On Thu 01-12-16 08:43:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 12/01/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The email thread starts more or less here
>> >
Let's also CC Marek
On Thu 01-12-16 08:43:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The email thread starts more or less here
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161130092239.gd18...@dhcp22.suse.cz
> >
> > On Thu 01-12-16 08:15:07, Michal Hocko
Let's also CC Marek
On Thu 01-12-16 08:43:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 12/01/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The email thread starts more or less here
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161130092239.gd18...@dhcp22.suse.cz
> >
> > On Thu 01-12-16 08:15:07, Michal Hocko
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 08:38:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> By default config this should not be used on x86.
> > What do you mean by that statement?
>
> I mean that the 16 mbytes for generic CMA area is not a default on x86:
>
> config CMA_SIZE_MBYTES
> int "Size in Mega
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 08:38:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> By default config this should not be used on x86.
> > What do you mean by that statement?
>
> I mean that the 16 mbytes for generic CMA area is not a default on x86:
>
> config CMA_SIZE_MBYTES
> int "Size in Mega
On 12/01/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The email thread starts more or less here
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161130092239.gd18...@dhcp22.suse.cz
On Thu 01-12-16 08:15:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 30-11-16 20:19:03, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
[...]
> alloc_contig_range:
On 12/01/2016 08:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The email thread starts more or less here
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161130092239.gd18...@dhcp22.suse.cz
On Thu 01-12-16 08:15:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 30-11-16 20:19:03, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
[...]
> alloc_contig_range:
On 12/01/2016 07:21 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:24:59PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[add more CC's]
On 11/30/2016 09:19 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Somewhere in the Radeon/DRM codebase, CMA page allocation has either
> regressed in the timeline of 4.5->4.9,
On 12/01/2016 07:21 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:24:59PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[add more CC's]
On 11/30/2016 09:19 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Somewhere in the Radeon/DRM codebase, CMA page allocation has either
> regressed in the timeline of 4.5->4.9,
Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The email thread starts more or less here
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161130092239.gd18...@dhcp22.suse.cz
On Thu 01-12-16 08:15:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-11-16 20:19:03, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> [...]
> > alloc_contig_range: [83f2a3, 83f2a4) PFNs busy
>
> Huh, do
Forgot to CC Joonsoo. The email thread starts more or less here
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161130092239.gd18...@dhcp22.suse.cz
On Thu 01-12-16 08:15:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-11-16 20:19:03, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> [...]
> > alloc_contig_range: [83f2a3, 83f2a4) PFNs busy
>
> Huh, do
On Wed 30-11-16 20:19:03, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
[...]
> alloc_contig_range: [83f2a3, 83f2a4) PFNs busy
Huh, do I get it right that the request was for a _single_ page? Why do
we need CMA for that?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
On Wed 30-11-16 20:19:03, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
[...]
> alloc_contig_range: [83f2a3, 83f2a4) PFNs busy
Huh, do I get it right that the request was for a _single_ page? Why do
we need CMA for that?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:24:59PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [add more CC's]
>
> On 11/30/2016 09:19 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > Somewhere in the Radeon/DRM codebase, CMA page allocation has either
> > regressed in the timeline of 4.5->4.9, and/or the drm/radeon code is
> > doing
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:24:59PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [add more CC's]
>
> On 11/30/2016 09:19 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > Somewhere in the Radeon/DRM codebase, CMA page allocation has either
> > regressed in the timeline of 4.5->4.9, and/or the drm/radeon code is
> > doing
[add more CC's]
On 11/30/2016 09:19 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Somewhere in the Radeon/DRM codebase, CMA page allocation has either
regressed in the timeline of 4.5->4.9, and/or the drm/radeon code is
doing something different with pages.
Could be that it didn't use
[add more CC's]
On 11/30/2016 09:19 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
Somewhere in the Radeon/DRM codebase, CMA page allocation has either
regressed in the timeline of 4.5->4.9, and/or the drm/radeon code is
doing something different with pages.
Could be that it didn't use
Somewhere in the Radeon/DRM codebase, CMA page allocation has either
regressed in the timeline of 4.5->4.9, and/or the drm/radeon code is
doing something different with pages.
Given that I haven't seen ANY other reports of this, I'm inclined to
believe the problem is drm/radeon specific (if I
Somewhere in the Radeon/DRM codebase, CMA page allocation has either
regressed in the timeline of 4.5->4.9, and/or the drm/radeon code is
doing something different with pages.
Given that I haven't seen ANY other reports of this, I'm inclined to
believe the problem is drm/radeon specific (if I
30 matches
Mail list logo
