All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
To: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	"Thomas Hellström (Intel)" <thomas_os@shipmail.org>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/15] drm/ttm, drm/amdgpu: Allow the driver some control over swapping
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 15:52:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3a74dca5db06864630653f8ee4c50a05d24b7004.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <562ed088-5b43-7b3f-703e-37c21d3933ef@amd.com>

On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 14:36 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 27.05.21 um 09:33 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
> > Hi, Christian,
> > 
> > Thanks for reviewing.
> > 
> > On 5/26/21 3:26 PM, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 26.05.21 um 13:32 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> > > > We are calling the eviction_valuable driver callback at eviction 
> > > > time to
> > > > determine whether we actually can evict a buffer object.
> > > > The upcoming i915 TTM backend needs the same functionality for
> > > > swapout,
> > > > and that might actually be beneficial to other drivers as well.
> > > > 
> > > > Add an eviction_valuable call also in the swapout path. Try to
> > > > keep the
> > > > current behaviour for all drivers by returning true if the buffer
> > > > object
> > > > is already in the TTM_PL_SYSTEM placement. We change behaviour
> > > > for the
> > > > case where a buffer object is in a TT backed placement when
> > > > swapped 
> > > > out,
> > > > in which case the drivers normal eviction_valuable path is run.
> > > > 
> > > > Finally make sure we don't try to swapout a bo that was recently
> > > > purged
> > > > and therefore unpopulated.
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <
> > > > maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <
> > > > thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > v3:
> > > > - Don't export ttm_tt_unpopulate
> > > > - Fix confusion reading the locked pointer instead of the value
> > > >    pointed to in ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable (Reported by
> > > >    Maarten Lankhorst)
> > > > ---
> > > >   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c |  4 +++
> > > >   drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c            | 43 
> > > > ++++++++++++++++---------
> > > >   drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c            |  3 ++
> > > >   3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c 
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c
> > > > index 3bc3aebfef7c..45d194bffc3f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c
> > > > @@ -1348,6 +1348,10 @@ static bool 
> > > > amdgpu_ttm_bo_eviction_valuable(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> > > >       struct dma_fence *f;
> > > >       int i;
> > > >   +    /* Swapout? */
> > > > +    if (bo->mem.mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)
> > > > +        return true;
> > > > +
> > > >       if (bo->type == ttm_bo_type_kernel &&
> > > >           !amdgpu_vm_evictable(ttm_to_amdgpu_bo(bo)))
> > > >           return false;
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c 
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > index be0406466460..1b2d062266ed 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > @@ -536,6 +536,10 @@ static int ttm_bo_evict(struct 
> > > > ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> > > >   bool ttm_bo_eviction_valuable(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> > > >                     const struct ttm_place *place)
> > > >   {
> > > > +    dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
> > > > +    if (bo->mem.mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)
> > > > +        return true;
> > > > +
> > > >       /* Don't evict this BO if it's outside of the
> > > >        * requested placement range
> > > >        */
> > > > @@ -558,7 +562,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ttm_bo_eviction_valuable);
> > > >    * b. Otherwise, trylock it.
> > > >    */
> > > >   static bool ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(struct 
> > > > ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> > > > -            struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx, bool *locked, bool
> > > > *busy)
> > > > +                       struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > > > +                       const struct ttm_place *place,
> > > > +                       bool *locked, bool *busy)
> > > >   {
> > > >       bool ret = false;
> > > >   @@ -576,6 +582,14 @@ static bool 
> > > > ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> > > >               *busy = !ret;
> > > >       }
> > > >   +    if (ret && place && !bo->bdev->funcs-
> > > > >eviction_valuable(bo, 
> > > > place)) {
> > > > +        ret = false;
> > > > +        if (*locked) {
> > > > +            dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > > > +            *locked = false;
> > > > +        }
> > > > +    }
> > > > +
> > > >       return ret;
> > > >   }
> > > >   @@ -630,20 +644,14 @@ int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct ttm_device
> > > > *bdev,
> > > >           list_for_each_entry(bo, &man->lru[i], lru) {
> > > >               bool busy;
> > > >   -            if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx,
> > > > &locked,
> > > > -                                &busy)) {
> > > > +            if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, place,
> > > > +                                &locked, &busy)) {
> > > >                   if (busy && !busy_bo && ticket !=
> > > >                       dma_resv_locking_ctx(bo->base.resv))
> > > >                       busy_bo = bo;
> > > >                   continue;
> > > >               }
> > > >   -            if (place && !bdev->funcs->eviction_valuable(bo,
> > > > -                                      place)) {
> > > > -                if (locked)
> > > > -                    dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > > > -                continue;
> > > > -            }
> > > >               if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
> > > >                   if (locked)
> > > >                       dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > > > @@ -1140,10 +1148,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ttm_bo_wait);
> > > >   int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, struct 
> > > > ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > > >              gfp_t gfp_flags)
> > > >   {
> > > > +    struct ttm_place place = {};
> > > >       bool locked;
> > > >       int ret;
> > > >   -    if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, &locked,
> > > > NULL))
> > > > +    /*
> > > > +     * While the bo may already reside in SYSTEM placement, set
> > > > +     * SYSTEM as new placement to cover also the move further
> > > > below.
> > > > +     * The driver may use the fact that we're moving from SYSTEM
> > > > +     * as an indication that we're about to swap out.
> > > > +     */
> > > > +    place.mem_type = TTM_PL_SYSTEM;
> > > > +    if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, &place,
> > > > &locked, 
> > > > NULL))
> > > >           return -EBUSY;
> > > >         if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
> > > > @@ -1168,12 +1184,7 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
> > > > ttm_buffer_object 
> > > > *bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > > >       if (bo->mem.mem_type != TTM_PL_SYSTEM) {
> > > >           struct ttm_operation_ctx ctx = { false, false };
> > > >           struct ttm_resource evict_mem;
> > > > -        struct ttm_place place, hop;
> > > > -
> > > > -        memset(&place, 0, sizeof(place));
> > > > -        memset(&hop, 0, sizeof(hop));
> > > > -
> > > > -        place.mem_type = TTM_PL_SYSTEM;
> > > > +        struct ttm_place hop = {};
> > > 
> > > I would stick with memset because of the padding reasons.
> > > 
> > > >             ret = ttm_resource_alloc(bo, &place, &evict_mem);
> > > >           if (unlikely(ret))
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c 
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c
> > > > index 913b330a234b..d9793cbb6d13 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c
> > > > @@ -263,6 +263,9 @@ int ttm_tt_swapout(struct ttm_device *bdev,
> > > > struct ttm_tt *ttm,
> > > >       struct page *to_page;
> > > >       int i, ret;
> > > >   +    if (!ttm_tt_is_populated(ttm))
> > > > +        return 0;
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > This here is just because of a bug in the higher level function.
> > > 
> > > I've just pushed the fix for that to drm-misc-fixes, so maybe drop 
> > > that here as soon as this is backmerged.
> > > 
> > That code doesn't look correct to me. In ttm_device_swapout only the 
> > lru lock is held, and the bo->ttm pointer is protected by the resv 
> > lock, meaning that bo->ttm can disappear at any time in that
> > function, 
> > so while an advisory reading bo->ttm using READ_ONCE() is ok, 
> > dereferencing the bo->ttm pointer without reservation held is illegal
> > and may send you into recently freed memory.
> > 
> > For an example, consider
> > 
> > thread A. Selects bo for eviction, moves to system lru, creates ttm
> > Thread B locks lru in swapout code. finds bo->ttm NON_NULL,
> > thread A tries to evict bo, fails, destroys the ttm.
> > Thread B derefs freed memory.
> > 
> > But even relying on that there were no such example in the ttm core
> > itself, not adhering to the protection of bo->ttm makes the code 
> > extremely fragile and IMHO needs fixing.
> > 
> > Also as a secondary note, a driver is in principle free to do things 
> > in the swap notifier that may result in an unpopulated ttm so IMHO a 
> > late check is needed here.
> > 
> > So ack to keep the above?
> 
> Oh, really good point. Haven't thought about that for the quick fix.
> 
> I think for the short term we need to protect TT destruction by the 
> spinlock.

To avoid more locking complexity, 
I think it would be easy to just defer the code that derefs the ttm
(except the new unpopulated check) to ttm_bo_swapout() after we've
taken the resv trylock, but before taking the kref, returning -EBUSY if
conditions for swapping are not met.

> 
> The problem doing it here is that you end up in an endless loop
> currently.
> 
> E.g. you trylock and inspect the same BO over and over again.
> 
> Need to double check the code to see if that can somehow be avoided.

Well ttm_tt_swapout happily returns 0, so the BO gets pulled off the
LRU anyway so I think that shouldn't happen.

The only thing that becomes incorrect is the num_pages return in
ttm_device_swapout(). OTOH, the caller shouldn't care whether we
actually swapped out or whether the bo losts its pages in swap_notify.

/Thomas


> 
> Christian.
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Thomas
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Christian.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >       swap_storage = shmem_file_setup("ttm swap", size, 0);
> > > >       if (IS_ERR(swap_storage)) {
> > > >           pr_err("Failed allocating swap storage\n");
> 



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
To: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	"Thomas Hellström (Intel)" <thomas_os@shipmail.org>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 10/15] drm/ttm, drm/amdgpu: Allow the driver some control over swapping
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 15:52:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3a74dca5db06864630653f8ee4c50a05d24b7004.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <562ed088-5b43-7b3f-703e-37c21d3933ef@amd.com>

On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 14:36 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 27.05.21 um 09:33 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
> > Hi, Christian,
> > 
> > Thanks for reviewing.
> > 
> > On 5/26/21 3:26 PM, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 26.05.21 um 13:32 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> > > > We are calling the eviction_valuable driver callback at eviction 
> > > > time to
> > > > determine whether we actually can evict a buffer object.
> > > > The upcoming i915 TTM backend needs the same functionality for
> > > > swapout,
> > > > and that might actually be beneficial to other drivers as well.
> > > > 
> > > > Add an eviction_valuable call also in the swapout path. Try to
> > > > keep the
> > > > current behaviour for all drivers by returning true if the buffer
> > > > object
> > > > is already in the TTM_PL_SYSTEM placement. We change behaviour
> > > > for the
> > > > case where a buffer object is in a TT backed placement when
> > > > swapped 
> > > > out,
> > > > in which case the drivers normal eviction_valuable path is run.
> > > > 
> > > > Finally make sure we don't try to swapout a bo that was recently
> > > > purged
> > > > and therefore unpopulated.
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <
> > > > maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <
> > > > thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > v3:
> > > > - Don't export ttm_tt_unpopulate
> > > > - Fix confusion reading the locked pointer instead of the value
> > > >    pointed to in ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable (Reported by
> > > >    Maarten Lankhorst)
> > > > ---
> > > >   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c |  4 +++
> > > >   drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c            | 43 
> > > > ++++++++++++++++---------
> > > >   drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c            |  3 ++
> > > >   3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c 
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c
> > > > index 3bc3aebfef7c..45d194bffc3f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c
> > > > @@ -1348,6 +1348,10 @@ static bool 
> > > > amdgpu_ttm_bo_eviction_valuable(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> > > >       struct dma_fence *f;
> > > >       int i;
> > > >   +    /* Swapout? */
> > > > +    if (bo->mem.mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)
> > > > +        return true;
> > > > +
> > > >       if (bo->type == ttm_bo_type_kernel &&
> > > >           !amdgpu_vm_evictable(ttm_to_amdgpu_bo(bo)))
> > > >           return false;
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c 
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > index be0406466460..1b2d062266ed 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > @@ -536,6 +536,10 @@ static int ttm_bo_evict(struct 
> > > > ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> > > >   bool ttm_bo_eviction_valuable(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> > > >                     const struct ttm_place *place)
> > > >   {
> > > > +    dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
> > > > +    if (bo->mem.mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)
> > > > +        return true;
> > > > +
> > > >       /* Don't evict this BO if it's outside of the
> > > >        * requested placement range
> > > >        */
> > > > @@ -558,7 +562,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ttm_bo_eviction_valuable);
> > > >    * b. Otherwise, trylock it.
> > > >    */
> > > >   static bool ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(struct 
> > > > ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> > > > -            struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx, bool *locked, bool
> > > > *busy)
> > > > +                       struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > > > +                       const struct ttm_place *place,
> > > > +                       bool *locked, bool *busy)
> > > >   {
> > > >       bool ret = false;
> > > >   @@ -576,6 +582,14 @@ static bool 
> > > > ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> > > >               *busy = !ret;
> > > >       }
> > > >   +    if (ret && place && !bo->bdev->funcs-
> > > > >eviction_valuable(bo, 
> > > > place)) {
> > > > +        ret = false;
> > > > +        if (*locked) {
> > > > +            dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > > > +            *locked = false;
> > > > +        }
> > > > +    }
> > > > +
> > > >       return ret;
> > > >   }
> > > >   @@ -630,20 +644,14 @@ int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct ttm_device
> > > > *bdev,
> > > >           list_for_each_entry(bo, &man->lru[i], lru) {
> > > >               bool busy;
> > > >   -            if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx,
> > > > &locked,
> > > > -                                &busy)) {
> > > > +            if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, place,
> > > > +                                &locked, &busy)) {
> > > >                   if (busy && !busy_bo && ticket !=
> > > >                       dma_resv_locking_ctx(bo->base.resv))
> > > >                       busy_bo = bo;
> > > >                   continue;
> > > >               }
> > > >   -            if (place && !bdev->funcs->eviction_valuable(bo,
> > > > -                                      place)) {
> > > > -                if (locked)
> > > > -                    dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > > > -                continue;
> > > > -            }
> > > >               if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
> > > >                   if (locked)
> > > >                       dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > > > @@ -1140,10 +1148,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ttm_bo_wait);
> > > >   int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, struct 
> > > > ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > > >              gfp_t gfp_flags)
> > > >   {
> > > > +    struct ttm_place place = {};
> > > >       bool locked;
> > > >       int ret;
> > > >   -    if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, &locked,
> > > > NULL))
> > > > +    /*
> > > > +     * While the bo may already reside in SYSTEM placement, set
> > > > +     * SYSTEM as new placement to cover also the move further
> > > > below.
> > > > +     * The driver may use the fact that we're moving from SYSTEM
> > > > +     * as an indication that we're about to swap out.
> > > > +     */
> > > > +    place.mem_type = TTM_PL_SYSTEM;
> > > > +    if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, &place,
> > > > &locked, 
> > > > NULL))
> > > >           return -EBUSY;
> > > >         if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
> > > > @@ -1168,12 +1184,7 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
> > > > ttm_buffer_object 
> > > > *bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > > >       if (bo->mem.mem_type != TTM_PL_SYSTEM) {
> > > >           struct ttm_operation_ctx ctx = { false, false };
> > > >           struct ttm_resource evict_mem;
> > > > -        struct ttm_place place, hop;
> > > > -
> > > > -        memset(&place, 0, sizeof(place));
> > > > -        memset(&hop, 0, sizeof(hop));
> > > > -
> > > > -        place.mem_type = TTM_PL_SYSTEM;
> > > > +        struct ttm_place hop = {};
> > > 
> > > I would stick with memset because of the padding reasons.
> > > 
> > > >             ret = ttm_resource_alloc(bo, &place, &evict_mem);
> > > >           if (unlikely(ret))
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c 
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c
> > > > index 913b330a234b..d9793cbb6d13 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_tt.c
> > > > @@ -263,6 +263,9 @@ int ttm_tt_swapout(struct ttm_device *bdev,
> > > > struct ttm_tt *ttm,
> > > >       struct page *to_page;
> > > >       int i, ret;
> > > >   +    if (!ttm_tt_is_populated(ttm))
> > > > +        return 0;
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > This here is just because of a bug in the higher level function.
> > > 
> > > I've just pushed the fix for that to drm-misc-fixes, so maybe drop 
> > > that here as soon as this is backmerged.
> > > 
> > That code doesn't look correct to me. In ttm_device_swapout only the 
> > lru lock is held, and the bo->ttm pointer is protected by the resv 
> > lock, meaning that bo->ttm can disappear at any time in that
> > function, 
> > so while an advisory reading bo->ttm using READ_ONCE() is ok, 
> > dereferencing the bo->ttm pointer without reservation held is illegal
> > and may send you into recently freed memory.
> > 
> > For an example, consider
> > 
> > thread A. Selects bo for eviction, moves to system lru, creates ttm
> > Thread B locks lru in swapout code. finds bo->ttm NON_NULL,
> > thread A tries to evict bo, fails, destroys the ttm.
> > Thread B derefs freed memory.
> > 
> > But even relying on that there were no such example in the ttm core
> > itself, not adhering to the protection of bo->ttm makes the code 
> > extremely fragile and IMHO needs fixing.
> > 
> > Also as a secondary note, a driver is in principle free to do things 
> > in the swap notifier that may result in an unpopulated ttm so IMHO a 
> > late check is needed here.
> > 
> > So ack to keep the above?
> 
> Oh, really good point. Haven't thought about that for the quick fix.
> 
> I think for the short term we need to protect TT destruction by the 
> spinlock.

To avoid more locking complexity, 
I think it would be easy to just defer the code that derefs the ttm
(except the new unpopulated check) to ttm_bo_swapout() after we've
taken the resv trylock, but before taking the kref, returning -EBUSY if
conditions for swapping are not met.

> 
> The problem doing it here is that you end up in an endless loop
> currently.
> 
> E.g. you trylock and inspect the same BO over and over again.
> 
> Need to double check the code to see if that can somehow be avoided.

Well ttm_tt_swapout happily returns 0, so the BO gets pulled off the
LRU anyway so I think that shouldn't happen.

The only thing that becomes incorrect is the num_pages return in
ttm_device_swapout(). OTOH, the caller shouldn't care whether we
actually swapped out or whether the bo losts its pages in swap_notify.

/Thomas


> 
> Christian.
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Thomas
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Christian.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >       swap_storage = shmem_file_setup("ttm swap", size, 0);
> > > >       if (IS_ERR(swap_storage)) {
> > > >           pr_err("Failed allocating swap storage\n");
> 


_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-27 13:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-26 11:32 [PATCH v4 00/15] drm/i915: Move LMEM (VRAM) management over to TTM Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 01/15] drm/i915: Untangle the vma pages_mutex Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 02/15] drm/i915: Don't free shared locks while shared Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 03/15] drm/i915: Fix i915_sg_page_sizes to record dma segments rather than physical pages Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 04/15] drm/i915/ttm Initialize the ttm device and memory managers Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 05/15] drm/i915/ttm: Embed a ttm buffer object in the i915 gem object Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 06/15] drm/ttm: Add a generic TTM memcpy move for page-based iomem Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 07/15] drm, drm/i915: Move the memcpy_from_wc functionality to core drm Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 14:27   ` Christian König
2021-05-26 14:27     ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 08/15] drm/ttm: Use drm_memcpy_from_wc_dbm for TTM bo moves Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 09/15] drm/ttm: Document and optimize ttm_bo_pipeline_gutting() Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 14:32   ` Christian König
2021-05-26 14:32     ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 10/15] drm/ttm, drm/amdgpu: Allow the driver some control over swapping Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 13:26   ` Christian König
2021-05-26 13:26     ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2021-05-27  7:33     ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2021-05-27  7:33       ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2021-05-27 12:36       ` Christian König
2021-05-27 12:36         ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2021-05-27 13:52         ` Thomas Hellström [this message]
2021-05-27 13:52           ` Thomas Hellström
2021-05-27 14:21           ` Thomas Hellström
2021-05-27 14:21             ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 11/15] drm/i915/ttm: Introduce a TTM i915 gem object backend Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 12/15] drm/i915/lmem: Verify checks for lmem residency Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 13/15] drm/i915: Disable mmap ioctl for gen12+ Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 17:28   ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2021-05-26 17:28     ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 14/15] drm/vma: Add a driver_private member to vma_node Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-27  8:16   ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2021-05-27  8:16     ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2021-05-26 11:32 ` [PATCH v4 15/15] drm/i915: Use ttm mmap handling for ttm bo's Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 11:32   ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 17:40   ` Thomas Hellström
2021-05-26 17:40     ` [Intel-gfx] " Thomas Hellström
2021-05-27 11:11     ` Maarten Lankhorst
2021-05-27 11:11       ` [Intel-gfx] " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-05-26 16:20 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915: Move LMEM (VRAM) management over to TTM (rev4) Patchwork
2021-05-26 16:23 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2021-05-26 16:51 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2021-05-27  1:57 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3a74dca5db06864630653f8ee4c50a05d24b7004.camel@linux.intel.com \
    --to=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=thomas_os@shipmail.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.