Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:36:21) > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:32 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:28:03) > > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:21 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:19:06) > > > > > On memory constrained systems it may happen that no pages are available > > > > > for serving object creation attempt during engine park. Since we can > > > > > and we do ignore that failure, let's suppress possible warnings from > > > > > page allocator to avoid confusion and make CI happy. > > > > > > > > The effect of ignoring it though is dangerous, hence why I had a > > > > warning. > > > > > > Then maybe just WARN() from switch_to_kernel_context() on > > > __i915_request_create() returning -ENOMEM instead? > > > > The warning exists already. The only real question is what to do about > > it; the best answer would be to preallocate the final request during > > unpark where we can report an error, but that would take a bit more > > effort to refactor request allocation. Hence the warning to make it a > > futureselves problem. > > I meant a warning with a very specific message that could be filtered > easily by CI for now. It has a very specific stacktrace, and I hope by filtered you mean identified and reported as an issue, possibly with multiple causes since this is an indication that reclaim is snafu. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
