On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.... On devices that actually need CMA pools to arrange for memory to be in certain ranges, I think you probably do want to have order 0 pages come from the CMA pool. Seems like disabling CMA on x86 (where it should be unneeded) is the better way, IMO BR, -R > /Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
