On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:55:16PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > On ke, 2017-04-05 at 23:15 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Many sightings report the greater prevalence of allocation failures. > > This is all due to the incorrect use of mapping_gfp_constraint(), so > > remove it in favour of just querying the mapping_gfp_mask() which are > > the exact gfp_t we wanted in the first place. > > > > We still do expect a higher chance of reporting ENOMEM, as that is the > > intention of using __GFP_NORETRY -- to fail rather than oom after having > > reclaimed from our bo caches, and having done a direct|kswapd reclaim > > pass. > > > > Reported-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand@xxxxxxxxx> > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100594 > > Fixes: 24f8e00a8a2e ("drm/i915: Prefer to report ENOMEM rather than incur the oom for gfx allocations") > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Pushed in shame, -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
