https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216917 --- Comment #27 from Rainer Fiebig (jrf@xxxxxxxxxxx) --- (In reply to Alex Deucher from comment #26) > (In reply to Rainer Fiebig from comment #25) > > (In reply to Alex Deucher from comment #23) > > > I'll just revert it. It is more important for kernels with the the > > > drm_buddy changes. > > > > Would the following be equivalent to what you intended with your commit? > > Looks a bit awkward but hibernate/resume work with it for 6.0.19 (and a > > Ryzen 5600G): > > > > > > uint32_t amdgpu_bo_get_preferred_domain(struct amdgpu_device *adev, > > uint32_t domain) > > { > > if (domain == (AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM | AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT)) { > > domain = AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM; > > if ((adev->asic_type == CHIP_CARRIZO) || (adev->asic_type == > > CHIP_STONEY)) > > { > > if (adev->gmc.real_vram_size <= AMDGPU_SG_THRESHOLD) > > domain = AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT; > > } > > } > > return domain; > > } > > > > > > Let me know whether this is worth persuing. I could then test it with > > 5.15.88 and 6.1.6. > > Nope. What my patch does is allow display buffers to be in either system > memory (GTT) or carve out (VRAM) depending on what is available. Without > the patch, the driver picks either VRAM or GTT depending on how much VRAM is > available on the system. This can lead to memory exhaustion in some cases > with multiple large resolution monitors depending on memory fragmentation. > > What your patch does is just always use VRAM unless the chip is Carrizo or > Stoney. So it is effectively just reverting the commit (depending on how > much VRAM your system has). I see. Thanks a lot for the explanation! -- You may reply to this email to add a comment. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.
