On 09/26/2014 12:40 PM, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:15:57 +0200 > Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 09/26/2014 01:52 AM, Peter Hurley wrote: >>> On 09/25/2014 03:35 PM, Chuck Ebbert wrote: >>>> There are six ttm patches queued for 3.16.4: >>>> >>>> drm-ttm-choose-a-pool-to-shrink-correctly-in-ttm_dma_pool_shrink_scan.patch >>>> drm-ttm-fix-handling-of-ttm_pl_flag_topdown-v2.patch >>>> drm-ttm-fix-possible-division-by-0-in-ttm_dma_pool_shrink_scan.patch >>>> drm-ttm-fix-possible-stack-overflow-by-recursive-shrinker-calls.patch >>>> drm-ttm-pass-gfp-flags-in-order-to-avoid-deadlock.patch >>>> drm-ttm-use-mutex_trylock-to-avoid-deadlock-inside-shrinker-functions.patch >>> Thanks for info, Chuck. >>> >>> Unfortunately, none of these fix TTM dma allocation doing CMA dma allocation, >>> which is the root problem. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Peter Hurley >> The problem is not really in TTM but in CMA, There was a guy offering to >> fix this in the CMA code but I guess he didn't probably because he >> didn't receive any feedback. >> > Yeah, the "solution" to this problem seems to be "don't enable CMA on > x86". Maybe it should even be disabled in the config system. Or, as previously suggested, don't use CMA for order 0 (single page) allocations.... /Thomas _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
