On Saturday, June 19, 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, June 19, 2010, Dave Airlie wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-06-19 at 01:23 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Friday, June 18, 2010, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 22:21 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > I have recently noticed a 55 sec. delay during the "device freeze" > > > > > phase of hibernation on my test-bed HP nx6325. Due to the 100% > > > > > reproducibility of it I was able to narrow it down to > > > > > radeon_suspend_kms() and then it turned out that the delay occured > > > > > somewhere in radeon_bo_evict_vram(). However, it doesn't seem really > > > > > necessary or even very useful to me to evict VRAM at this particular > > > > > point, because we're going to create an image and bring the device > > > > > back to the fully functional state in a little while. Thus, I think > > > > > the VRAM evicition can be skipped for state.event == PM_EVENT_FREEZE, > > > > > which makes the delay go away. > > > > > > > > I'm not 100% sure of the hibernate sequencing and its early in the > > > > morning, but we want to evict VRAM before image building so we can have > > > > the contents of VRAM in the image so we can restore them on resume. Does > > > > this just avoid evicting them a second time after we created the image? > > > > > > No, it's the first time, before creating the image, but I didn't seen any > > > difference on resume with and without the patch, so I thought it was a good > > > idea. :-) > > > > On the machine you have its most likely not going to show up unless you > > are running a 3D app or something across suspend, since currently X > > re-exposes most apps on VT switch, so they just redraw. > > Yes. Moreover, hibernation is always done after a VT switch. That's why > I said I thought the eviction wasn't necessary in the changelog. > > BTW, I have three different test boxes with radeon hardware and the > $subject patch is not a problem on any of them. > > > Was it always this slow? > > Nope. It definitely is a regression, although I'm not sure what's the last > good kernel. > > > you can see how many objects are in vram using > > debugfs (/sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/radeon_vram_mm), it sounds like the TTM > > eviction process is blocking on something, I did some more debug work (the _total_ lack of comments inside of the relevant radeon and ttm code makes this a next-to-impossible task, though) and found that all of the delays (up to 5 seconds) happen inside of ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup() called from radeon_move_blit(), where the "new" memory type is TTL_PL_TT and the "old" one is TTL_PL_VRAM. The preceding radeon_copy() always returns 0. Please let me know if you need more information. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
