similar to: Questions about the Nouveau VM subsystem

Op 11-08-13 07:36, Benjamin Herrenschmidt schreef: > On Sun, 2013-08-11 at 10:41 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> Now, to do that, I need a better understanding of the various things >> in there since I'm not familiar with nouveau at all. What I think I've >> figured out is with a few questions, it would be awesome if you could >> answer them so I can have

move_notify is called by ttm after the the object is idle and about to be destroyed. Clean up the vm list properly in that case. This is not a problem right now, since the list should already be empty, but if it wasn't empty, vm_put was not called which leads to random corruption later. With this fix, nouveau_gem_object_close can be safely changed to a noop, forcing the vm bindings to be

On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 16:49 +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote: > > Additionally the current code is broken in that the upper layer in > > vm/base.c doesn't increment "pte" by the right amount. > > > > Now, if those two assertions can be made always true: > > > > - Those two functions (map_sg and map_sg_table) never deal with the > > "big"

From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at canonical.com> Commit de7b7d59d54852c introduced tiled GART, but a linear copy is still performed. This may result in errors on eviction, fix it by checking tiling from memtype. Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at canonical.com> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org #3.10+ --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c | 33

On Sun, 2013-08-11 at 11:02 +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/engine/fifo/nv40.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/engine/fifo/nv40.c > > index 5c7433d..c314a5f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/engine/fifo/nv40.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/engine/fifo/nv40.c > > @@ -190,8 +190,8 @@

On Sun, 2013-08-11 at 17:06 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > I think I found at least two cases where "12" was used where it should > have been PAGE_SHIFT (basically ttm_mem_reg->num_pages). This > is only the tip of the iceberg, so this isn't a formal patch submission, > but I would appreciate your thought as to whether the below is correct > (and thus

drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_ttm.c: In function nouveau_vram_manager_new: drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_ttm.c:66:22: warning: variable mem set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_ttm.c: In function nouveau_gart_manager_new: drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_ttm.c:106:22: warning: variable mem set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] They are not used

Dynamically resizing the framebuffer on nv04 was like playing Russian roulette (and it often happened gratuitously) because it seems unable to scan out from buffers above 16MB. This patch splits the mappable VRAM into two chunks when that's the case, and makes the higher one to be used as well when applicable. Signed-off-by: Francisco Jerez <currojerez at riseup.net> ---

Without diving in any of the details, your commit message has me curious and concerned... In a "manager" kind of way, despite being neither a manager nor an insider or active contributor. ;-) On 24/01/2020 14:30, Christian K?nig wrote: > From: Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> > > While working on TTM cleanups I've found that the io_reserve_lru

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 00:30, Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> > > While working on TTM cleanups I've found that the io_reserve_lru used by > Nouveau is actually not working at all. > > In general we should remove driver specific handling from the memory > management,

While working on TTM cleanups I've found that the io_reserve_lru used by Nouveau is actually not working at all. In general we should remove driver specific handling from the memory management, so this patch moves the io_reserve_lru handling into Nouveau instead. The patch should be functional correct, but is only compile tested! Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at

Hi folks ! So I've been trying to figure out what it would take to make nouveau work properly on architectures where PAGE_SIZE isn't 4k such as most ppc64's. An initial patch from Dave fixed a bogon in nv41.c nv41_vm_map_sg() which was trying to handle the case at that low level, but this isn't enough, and after a bit of digging, I also think that's not the right approach:

On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 08:59:13AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > When looking into this bug I noticed that nouveau_bo_vma_add needs to have a check for nvbo->page_shift == vma->vm->vmm->spg_shift, > and only if the check is true it should map the page in TTM_PL_TT. Patch below. > Should probably also be cc'd to stable. > How about this patch? Is it ready to

We want to be able to guarantee the location of the allocated buffer object if we're going to be able to reliably allocate the existing framebuffer at startup. Add an argument to do so and pass that through to the ttm core. Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg at redhat.com> --- drivers/bcma/main.c | 1 - drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c | 8 +++++++-

Hi guys, I've already send this out in September last year, but only got a response from Daniel. Could you guys please test this and tell me what you think about it? Basically I'm trying to remove all driver specific features from TTM which don't need to be inside the framework. Thanks, Christian.

Hi guys, so I got some hardware and tested this and after hammering out tons of typos it now seems to work fine. Could you give it more testing? Thanks in advance, Christian

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at canonical.com> wrote: > Op 22-08-13 02:10, Ilia Mirkin schreef: >> The code expects non-VRAM mem nodes to have a pages list. If that's not >> set, it will do a null deref down the line. Warn on that condition and >> return an error. >> >> See

nv50_bo_move_m2mf might copy to tiled gart, in which case linear copy is not appropriate. --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c index 88f0c45..0daf3f0 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c +++

Hi guys, I already tried this a few month ago, but since I don't have NVidia hardware its rather hard to test for me (need to get some ordered). Dave brought up the topic that we should probably try to move the handling into Nouveau once more, so I tried to fix the problem Ben reported and rebased on top of current drm-misc-next. Dave can you test this? At least in theory the approach

Most graphics cards nowadays have a multiple of this limit as their vram, so limiting GART doesn't seem to make much sense. Signed-off-by: Maarten >Lnkhorst <maarten.lankhorst at canonical.com> --- diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_ttm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_ttm.c index 3a5e19a..41ddecd 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_ttm.c +++