On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 11:11 +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Don, 2010-03-25 at 19:56 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > > 2010/3/25 Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net>: > > > On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 10:35 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > > >> From: Dave Airlie <airl...@redhat.com> > > >> > > >> On constrained r100 systems compiz would fail to start due to a lack > > >> of memory, we can just fallback place the objects rather than completely > > >> failing it works a lot better. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie <airl...@redhat.com> > > > > > > This change seems to trigger or at least greatly expedite GPU lockups on > > > my PowerBook. With the change applied, my normal X session locked up the > > > GPU after just a few minutes several times. Now with it reverted it's > > > back to the previous stability. > > > > Care to try in pci mode? see if helps, it might be just straining AGP > > a bit more, > > Ugh, k I'll try... but that incurs such a huge performance hit that the > result might not be very meaningful I'm afraid.
It didn't lock up in a couple of hours of suffering through PCI, so maybe it is an AGP problem, or maybe PCI is just too slow to trigger it... More likely the former though I guess. > > > I don't know why that is - maybe something doesn't properly deal with > > > BOs getting placed differently in some cases now - but anyway I suspect > > > the implications of this change haven't been fully thought through: The > > > log message sounds as though the change was mainly written with > > > radeon_bo_create() / radeon_bo_list_validate() in mind, but > > > radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain() is also called from other places: > > > > > > * radeon_bo_pin(): The change could lead to a BO being pinned to > > > GTT instead of VRAM, which would probably be bad. > > > * radeon_evict_flags(): The change might have undesirable > > > consequences here as well, not sure. > > > > The first might be bad, but the second should be okay, I'll take a closer > > look > > in the morning. > > What about that there are now usually no busy placements specified, > couldn't that be a problem? FWIW I tried re-using the normal placements for missing busy placements, didn't help. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
