Hi Yong,
How should deal with that or can you come up with a fix?
well that is the expected effect. So I don't see much we can do here.
Support for the parameter was added to be able to intentionally break
support for HMM/SVM for testing the fall back paths.
Didn't thought about ATC while enabling this, but it certainly falls
into the same category. Could be that we can still keep ATC working
while reducing the GPUVM size, but that would require further testing.
Regards,
Christian.
Am 14.12.2017 um 16:56 schrieb Yong Zhao:
Hi Christian,
I don't know much about the background. But according to my
experiments, as long as we change the vm size to 64G, ATC memory
access on Raven will fall apart. How should deal with that or can you
come up with a fix?
Regards,
Yong
On 2017-12-14 03:47 AM, Christian König wrote:
NAK, that really circumvents the intention of the patch to adjust the
number of levels based on the vm_size.
Christian.
Am 14.12.2017 um 03:25 schrieb Yong Zhao:
Change-Id: Id522c1cbadb8c069720f4e64a31cff42cd014733
Signed-off-by: Yong Zhao <yong.z...@amd.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
index 709587d..3b9eb1a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
@@ -2534,7 +2534,7 @@ void amdgpu_vm_adjust_size(struct
amdgpu_device *adev, uint32_t vm_size,
uint64_t tmp;
/* adjust vm size first */
- if (amdgpu_vm_size != -1) {
+ if (amdgpu_vm_size != -1 && max_level == 1) {
unsigned max_size = 1 << (max_bits - 30);
vm_size = amdgpu_vm_size;
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
