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. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>