Comment # 127
on bug 81644
from Alexandre Demers
(In reply to comment #126) > (In reply to comment #119) > > Small question Alex Deucher or Christian may answer: is it normal ring 5 is > > completely in a different GPU's memory address area? > > [ 9.353518] radeon 0000:01:00.0: fence driver on ring 0 use gpu addr > > 0x00000000c0000c00 and cpu addr 0xffff880411a25c00 > > [ 9.353519] radeon 0000:01:00.0: fence driver on ring 1 use gpu addr > > 0x00000000c0000c04 and cpu addr 0xffff880411a25c04 > > [ 9.353521] radeon 0000:01:00.0: fence driver on ring 2 use gpu addr > > 0x00000000c0000c08 and cpu addr 0xffff880411a25c08 > > [ 9.353522] radeon 0000:01:00.0: fence driver on ring 3 use gpu addr > > 0x00000000c0000c0c and cpu addr 0xffff880411a25c0c > > [ 9.353524] radeon 0000:01:00.0: fence driver on ring 4 use gpu addr > > 0x00000000c0000c10 and cpu addr 0xffff880411a25c10 > > [ 9.356425] radeon 0000:01:00.0: fence driver on ring 5 use gpu addr > > 0x0000000000075a18 and cpu addr 0xffffc90015fb5a18 > > > > rings 0 to 4 are all in the same gpu address subset, but not ring 5? > > Yes that's perfectly normal. Ring 5 is the UVD ring and that needs to have > it's fence in the first 256MB of VRAM. Thank you Christian for your quick explanation. Can we suspect the problem to be withing the UVD code then if: - crashes are mostly happening when watching videos (flash or html5 in whatever browser); - logs points to ring 5 not responding for some time?
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
