similar to: [bug report] drm/nouveau: move io_reserve_lru handling into the driver v5

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 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.

Just a gentle ping on this. Already got the Acked-by from Daniel, but I need some of the nouveau guys to test this since I can only compile test it. Regards, Christian.

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, so this patch moves the io_reserve_lru handling into Nouveau instead. The patch should be functional correct, but is only compile

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. v2: don't call ttm_bo_unmap_virtual in nouveau_ttm_io_mem_reserve v3: rebased and use both base and offset in the check v4:

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 03:12:53PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > 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

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

"Zhou, Xianrong" <Xianrong.Zhou at amd.com> writes: > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > >> >>>>> The vmf_insert_pfn_prot could cause unnecessary double faults on a >> >>>>> device pfn. Because currently the vmf_insert_pfn_prot does not >> >>>>> make the pfn writable so the pte entry is normally read-only or

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

We are trying to remove the io_lru handling and depend on zero init base, offset and addr here. v2: init addr as well Signed-off-by: Christian K?nig <christian.koenig at amd.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c index e3931e515906..772c640a6046 100644 ---

Am 22.01.24 um 04:32 schrieb Xianrong Zhou: > The vmf_insert_pfn_prot could cause unnecessary double faults > on a device pfn. Because currently the vmf_insert_pfn_prot does > not make the pfn writable so the pte entry is normally read-only > or dirty catching. What? How do you got to this conclusion? > The first fault only sets up the pte entry which actually is > dirty

Am 23.01.24 um 09:33 schrieb Zhou, Xianrong: > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > >>> The vmf_insert_pfn_prot could cause unnecessary double faults on a >>> device pfn. Because currently the vmf_insert_pfn_prot does not make >>> the pfn writable so the pte entry is normally read-only or dirty >>> catching. >> What? How do you got to this conclusion?

Am 24.01.24 um 03:43 schrieb Zhou, Xianrong: > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > >>>>> The vmf_insert_pfn_prot could cause unnecessary double faults on a >>>>> device pfn. Because currently the vmf_insert_pfn_prot does not make >>>>> the pfn writable so the pte entry is normally read-only or dirty >>>>> catching. >>>>

Am 09.10.19 um 17:39 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 03:12:53PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > [SNIP] >> +static vm_fault_t nouveau_ttm_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf) >> +{ >> + struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma; >> + struct ttm_buffer_object *bo = vma->vm_private_data; >> + pgprot_t prot; >> + vm_fault_t ret; >> + >> +

From: Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> That is not used any more. v2: keep the NULL checks in TTM. Signed-off-by: Christian K?nig <christian.koenig at amd.com> Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> --- drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 34 +-------- drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c | 113 +++--------------------------

Hi guys, while working through more old TTM functionality I stumbled over the io_reserve_lru. Basic idea is that when this flag is set the driver->io_mem_reserve() callback can return -EAGAIN resulting in unmapping of other BOs. But Nouveau doesn't seem to return -EAGAIN in the call path of io_mem_reserve anywhere. So is this unused or am I missing something? Regards, Christian.

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 22:19, Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > while working through more old TTM functionality I stumbled over the > io_reserve_lru. > > Basic idea is that when this flag is set the driver->io_mem_reserve() > callback can return -EAGAIN resulting in unmapping of other BOs. > > But Nouveau

Am 27.09.2019 20:07 schrieb Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu>: On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 5:44 PM Ben Skeggs <skeggsb at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 22:19, Christian König > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > while working through more old TTM functionality I stumbled over the > >