I'm not disagreeing with the change. Just trying to understand how this could have caused a VM fault. If the page tables are reserved or fenced while you allocate a new one, they would not be evicted. If they are not reserved or fenced, there should be no expectation that they stay resident. Is this related to recoverable page fault handling? Do we need some more generic way to handle eviction of page tables and update the parent page directory (invalidate the corresponding PDE)? Regards, Felix On 2019-09-19 4:41, Christian König wrote: > When we allocate new page tables under memory > pressure we should not evict old ones. > > Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c > index 70d45d48907a..8e44ecaada35 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c > @@ -514,7 +514,8 @@ static int amdgpu_bo_do_create(struct amdgpu_device *adev, > .interruptible = (bp->type != ttm_bo_type_kernel), > .no_wait_gpu = bp->no_wait_gpu, > .resv = bp->resv, > - .flags = TTM_OPT_FLAG_ALLOW_RES_EVICT > + .flags = bp->type != ttm_bo_type_kernel ? > + TTM_OPT_FLAG_ALLOW_RES_EVICT : 0 > }; > struct amdgpu_bo *bo; > unsigned long page_align, size = bp->size; _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
