RE: [PATCH 2/2] drm/amdgpu: set ttm bo priority before initialization

The series is OK to me, Reviewed-by: Chunming Zhou It is better to wait Christian to have a look before pushing patch. Regards, David Zhou -Original Message- From: Junwei Zhang [mailto:jerry.zh...@amd.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 12:58 PM To:

[PATCH 2/2] drm/amdgpu: set ttm bo priority before initialization

Signed-off-by: Junwei Zhang --- drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c index e62153a..6a9e46a 100644 ---

[PATCH 1/2] drm/ttm: remove priority hard code when initializing ttm bo

Then priority could be set before initialization. By default, it requires to kzalloc ttm bo. In fact, we always do so. Signed-off-by: Junwei Zhang --- drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c

Re: [PATCH] drm/ttm: specify bo priority when initializing ttm bo

On 05/11/2018 10:26 AM, zhoucm1 wrote: On 2018年05月11日 10:19, Zhang, Jerry (Junwei) wrote: On 05/11/2018 10:11 AM, zhoucm1 wrote: On 2018年05月11日 09:21, Zhang, Jerry (Junwei) wrote: On 05/10/2018 10:40 PM, Christian König wrote: Am 10.05.2018 um 07:01 schrieb Junwei Zhang: Expect to add

Re: [PATCH] drm/ttm: specify bo priority when initializing ttm bo

On 2018年05月11日 10:19, Zhang, Jerry (Junwei) wrote: On 05/11/2018 10:11 AM, zhoucm1 wrote: On 2018年05月11日 09:21, Zhang, Jerry (Junwei) wrote: On 05/10/2018 10:40 PM, Christian König wrote: Am 10.05.2018 um 07:01 schrieb Junwei Zhang: Expect to add an evitable bo who has reservation object

Re: [PATCH] drm/ttm: specify bo priority when initializing ttm bo

On 05/11/2018 10:11 AM, zhoucm1 wrote: On 2018年05月11日 09:21, Zhang, Jerry (Junwei) wrote: On 05/10/2018 10:40 PM, Christian König wrote: Am 10.05.2018 um 07:01 schrieb Junwei Zhang: Expect to add an evitable bo who has reservation object to the correct lru[bo->priority] list Nice catch,

Re: [PATCH] drm/ttm: specify bo priority when initializing ttm bo

On 2018年05月11日 09:21, Zhang, Jerry (Junwei) wrote: On 05/10/2018 10:40 PM, Christian König wrote: Am 10.05.2018 um 07:01 schrieb Junwei Zhang: Expect to add an evitable bo who has reservation object to the correct lru[bo->priority] list Nice catch, but since this affects only a very small

Re: [PATCH] drm/ttm: specify bo priority when initializing ttm bo

On 05/10/2018 10:40 PM, Christian König wrote: Am 10.05.2018 um 07:01 schrieb Junwei Zhang: Expect to add an evitable bo who has reservation object to the correct lru[bo->priority] list Nice catch, but since this affects only a very small use case can we just remove and readd the BO to the

[PATCH libdrm 1/1] amdgpu: Take lock before removing devices from fd_tab hash table.

Close the file descriptors under lock as well. Signed-off-by: Jan Vesely --- amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c | 11 +++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c b/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c index 983b19ab..f71fc050 100644 ---

Re: Cannot compile with GCC 8.1

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:27:12PM +0530, Dawson Dias wrote: > Wow they're just going to defer it untill GCC 9. So the kernel will be > unbuildable using GCC 8.x. > Pity. And recent llvm do not compile with gcc 7.3.0 because of the extreme complexity of the c++ syntax used in the latter... I was

[PATCH] drm/amdgpu/gmc9: remove unused register defs

These got moved to the new df module so no longer used in this file. Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher --- drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c | 14 -- 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c

Re: Cannot compile with GCC 8.1

Wow they're just going to defer it untill GCC 9. So the kernel will be unbuildable using GCC 8.x. Pity. On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Russell, Kent wrote: > It’s a bug in GCC, see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 > > > > Kent > > > > *From:* amd-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/ttm: specify bo priority when initializing ttm bo

Am 10.05.2018 um 07:01 schrieb Junwei Zhang: Expect to add an evitable bo who has reservation object to the correct lru[bo->priority] list Nice catch, but since this affects only a very small use case can we just remove and readd the BO to the LRU? A call to ttm_bo_move_to_lru_tail() after

[pull] amdgpu drm-fixes-4.17

Hi Dave, Regression fix for Fiji cards with high TDP. The following changes since commit 7c2b134110a6af3bfe574efdb23ee04c047dc311: Merge branch 'linux-4.17' of git://github.com/skeggsb/linux into drm-fixes (2018-05-10 13:48:52 +1000) are available in the git repository at:

Re: [PATCH] drm/amd/pp: Fix performance drop on Fiji

Reviewed-by: Junwei Zhang Regards, Jerry(Junwei Zhang) From: amd-gfx on behalf of Rex Zhu Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 7:59:10 PM To: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Zhu,

Re: [PATCH] drm/amd/pp: Fix performance drop on Fiji

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Rex Zhu wrote: > the performance drop happened on default TDP more than 256 Watt > > Signed-off-by: Rex Zhu Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/hwmgr/smu7_powertune.c | 4

[PATCH] drm/amd/pp: Fix performance drop on Fiji

the performance drop happened on default TDP more than 256 Watt Signed-off-by: Rex Zhu --- drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/hwmgr/smu7_powertune.c | 4 +--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/powerplay/hwmgr/smu7_powertune.c

RE: Cannot compile with GCC 8.1

It’s a bug in GCC, see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 Kent From: amd-gfx [mailto:amd-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Dawson Dias Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 8:51 PM To: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Cannot compile with GCC 8.1 Here's a log of the

Re: [PATCH 00/13] *** per vm lru ***

On 2018年05月10日 13:07, Zhang, Jerry (Junwei) wrote: On 05/09/2018 02:45 PM, Chunming Zhou wrote: move implemenation from ttm to amdgpu driver. (suggested by Christian) per-vm-lru is because of per-vm-bo, which has no chance to refresh lru, the nagtive effect is game performance isn't stable.