[PATCH v2 00/21] Refine memblock API

From: aford173@gmail.com (Adam Ford)
To: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 00/21] Refine memblock API
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 19:14:13 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHCN7xKLhWw4P9-sZKXQcfSfh2r3J_+rLxuxACW0UVgimCzyVw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHCN7xJEvS2Si=M+BYtz+kY0M4NxmqDjiX9Nwq6_3GGBh3yg=w@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019@8:33 AM Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am attaching two logs.  I now the mailing lists will be unhappy, but
>  don't want to try and spam a bunch of log through the mailing liast.
> The two logs show the differences between the working and non-working
> imx6q 3D accelerator when trying to run a simple glmark2-es2-drm demo.
>
> The only change between them is the 2 line code change you suggested.
>
> In both cases, I have cma=128M set in my bootargs.  Historically this
> has been sufficient, but cma=256M has not made a difference.
>

Mike any suggestions on how to move forward?
I was hoping to get the fixes tested and pushed before 5.4 is released
if at all possible

> adam
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019@2:33 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019@02:35:53PM -0500, Adam Ford wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019@11:04 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019@08:09:52AM -0500, Adam Ford wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019@10:17 AM Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019@9:17 AM Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I tried cma=256M and noticed the cma dump at the beginning didn't
> > > > > > > change.  Do we need to setup a reserved-memory node like
> > > > > > > imx6ul-ccimx6ulsom.dtsi did?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Were you able to identify what was the exact commit that caused such regression?
> > > > >
> > > > > I was able to narrow it down the 92d12f9544b7 ("memblock: refactor
> > > > > internal allocation functions") that caused the regression with
> > > > > Etnaviv.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you please test with this change:
> > > >
> > >
> > > That appears to have fixed my issue.  I am not sure what the impact
> > > is, but is this a safe option?
> >
> > It's not really a fix, I just wanted to see how exactly 92d12f9544b7 ("memblock:
> > refactor internal allocation functions") broke your setup.
> >
> > Can you share the dts you are using and the full kernel log?
> >
> > > adam
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> > > > index 7d4f61a..1f5a0eb 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/memblock.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> > > > @@ -1356,9 +1356,6 @@ static phys_addr_t __init memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
> > > >                 align = SMP_CACHE_BYTES;
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > -       if (end > memblock.current_limit)
> > > > -               end = memblock.current_limit;
> > > > -
> > > >  again:
> > > >         found = memblock_find_in_range_node(size, align, start, end, nid,
> > > >                                             flags);
> > > >
> > > > > I also noticed that if I create a reserved memory node as was done one
> > > > > imx6ul-ccimx6ulsom.dtsi the 3D seems to work again, but without it, I
> > > > > was getting errors regardless of the 'cma=256M' or not.
> > > > > I don't have a problem using the reserved memory, but I guess I am not
> > > > > sure what the amount should be.  I know for the video decoding 1080p,
> > > > > I have historically used cma=128M, but with the 3D also needing some
> > > > > memory allocation, is that enough or should I use 256M?
> > > > >
> > > > > adam
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sincerely yours,
> > > > Mike.
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely yours,
> > Mike.
> >