From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: aford173@gmail.com (Adam Ford) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 19:14:13 -0500 Subject: [PATCH v2 00/21] Refine memblock API In-Reply-To: References: <1548057848-15136-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.ibm.com> <20190926160433.GD32311@linux.ibm.com> <20190928073331.GA5269@linux.ibm.com> List-ID: Message-ID: To: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org On Sun, Sep 29, 2019@8:33 AM Adam Ford 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 wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019@02:35:53PM -0500, Adam Ford wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019@11:04 AM Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019@08:09:52AM -0500, Adam Ford wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019@10:17 AM Fabio Estevam wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019@9:17 AM Adam Ford 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. > >