Am 08.04.21 um 15:03 schrieb Alex Deucher:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 6:28 AM Christian König
<ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 08.04.21 um 09:13 schrieb Christian König:
Am 07.04.21 um 21:04 schrieb Alex Deucher:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 3:23 AM Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 06:54, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 12:22 PM Christian König
<ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey Alex,
the TTM and scheduler changes should already be in the drm-misc-next
branch (not 100% sure about the TTM patch, need to double check
next week).
The TTM change is not in drm-misc yet.
Could that cause problems when both are merged into drm-next?
Dave, Daniel, how do you want to handle this? The duplicated patch
is this one:
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-misc/commit/?id=ac4eb83ab255de9c31184df51fd1534ba36fd212
amdgpu has changes which depend on it. The same patch is included
in this PR.
Ouch not sure how best to sync up here, maybe get misc-next into my
tree then rebase your tree on top of it?
I can do that.
Please let me double check later today that we have everything we need
in drm-misc-next.
There where two patch for TTM (one from Felix and one from Oak) which
still needed to be pushed to drm-misc-next. I've done that just a minute
ago.
They were included in this PR.
Then we have this patch which fixes a bug in code removed on
drm-misc-next. I think it should be dropped when amd-staging-drm-next is
based on drm-next/drm-misc-next.
Author: xinhui pan <xinhui.pan@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed Feb 24 11:28:08 2021 +0800
drm/ttm: Do not add non-system domain BO into swap list
Ok.
I've also found the following patch which is problematic as well:
commit c8a921d49443025e10794342d4433b3f29616409
Author: Jack Zhang <Jack.Zhang1@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Mar 8 12:41:27 2021 +0800
drm/amd/amdgpu implement tdr advanced mode
[Why]
Previous tdr design treats the first job in job_timeout as the bad job.
But sometimes a later bad compute job can block a good gfx job and
cause an unexpected gfx job timeout because gfx and compute ring share
internal GC HW mutually.
[How]
This patch implements an advanced tdr mode.It involves an additinal
synchronous pre-resubmit step(Step0 Resubmit) before normal resubmit
step in order to find the real bad job.
1. At Step0 Resubmit stage, it synchronously submits and pends for the
first job being signaled. If it gets timeout, we identify it as guilty
and do hw reset. After that, we would do the normal resubmit step to
resubmit left jobs.
2. For whole gpu reset(vram lost), do resubmit as the old way.
Signed-off-by: Jack Zhang <Jack.Zhang1@xxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky@xxxxxxx>
That one is modifying both amdgpu as well as the scheduler code. IIRC I
actually requested that the patch is split into two, but that was
somehow not done.
How should we proceed here? Should I separate the patch, push the
changes to drm-misc-next and then we merge with drm-next and rebase
amd-staging-drm-next on top of that?
That's most likely the cleanest option approach as far as I can see.
That's fine with me. We could have included them in my PR. Now we
have wait for drm-misc-next to be merged again before we can merge the
amdgpu code.
Well I'm not sure, but the patches are identical on both branches.
As far as I can see git then just ignores that it gets the patches from
both sides of the merge.
But I'm not an expert if that doesn't has some bad consequences
somewhere else.
On the other hand I've decided to keep the TDR patch as it is for now.
Regards,
Christian.
Is anyone planning to do another drm-misc merge at this
point?
Alex
Thanks,
Christian.
Regards,
Christian.
Alex
Dave.
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
