On 2022-12-12 14:19, Christian König wrote: > Am 12.12.22 um 18:48 schrieb Luben Tuikov: >> Fix amdgpu_bo_validate_size() to check whether the TTM domain manager for the >> requested memory exists, and to allow for non-exclusive domain allocations, as >> there would be if the domain is a mask, e.g. AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM | >> AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT. >> >> Cc: Alex Deucher <Alexander.Deucher@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c | 19 +++++++------------ >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c >> index fd3ab4b5e5bb1f..e0f103f0ec2178 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c >> @@ -448,31 +448,26 @@ static bool amdgpu_bo_validate_size(struct amdgpu_device *adev, >> >> /* >> * If GTT is part of requested domains the check must succeed to >> - * allow fall back to GTT >> + * allow fall back to GTT. >> + * >> + * Note that allocations can request from either domain. For >> + * this reason, check either in non-exclusive way, and if >> + * neither satisfies, fail the validation. > > That's not correct, the original logic was completely intentional. > > If both VRAM and GTT are specified it's valid if the size fits only into > GTT. Given that this patch fixes a kernel oops, should this patch then fail the validation, i.e. return false? This would then fail, in amdgpu_ttm_reserve_tmr(): ret = amdgpu_bo_create_kernel_at(adev, adev->gmc.real_vram_size - adev->mman.discovery_tmr_size, adev->mman.discovery_tmr_size, AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM | AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT, &adev->mman.discovery_memory, NULL); Regards, Luben
