On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 01:24:47PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 01:52:49PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Please add those numbers to the commit message, I think without them this
> > particular change isn't well-justified enough.
>
> The oom defense itself?
In order to exhibit the bad behaviour that prompted v2, I have to
disable the request_alloc() retirement. That is after
commit 9b5f4e5ed6fd58390ecad3772b80936357f1aba6
Author: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed Jul 20 09:21:09 2016 +0100
drm/i915: Retire oldest completed request before allocating next
this is no longer appears to be required. And since this is only
considering requests, the situation where retiring all rings is better
than retiring the active ring is slim. I will have to see if I can
generate a hog on one engine that causes memory pressure to adversely
affect other clients (beyond reasonable expectations!).
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
