On 2019-02-22 8:45 a.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 07:10 +, Koenig, Christian wrote:
>> Am 21.02.19 um 22:02 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 20:24 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
On 2019-02-21 12:34 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 07:10 +, Koenig, Christian wrote:
> Am 21.02.19 um 22:02 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 20:24 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> > > On 2019-02-21 12:34 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 16:57 +, Kuehling, Felix
Am 21.02.19 um 22:02 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 20:24 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
>> On 2019-02-21 12:34 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 16:57 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
On 2019-02-21 2:59 a.m., Koenig, Christian wrote:
> On x86 w
Hi,
On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 20:24 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> On 2019-02-21 12:34 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 16:57 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> > > On 2019-02-21 2:59 a.m., Koenig, Christian wrote:
> > > > On x86 with HIGHMEM there is no dma32 zone. Why do we need
On 2019-02-21 12:34 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 16:57 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
>> On 2019-02-21 2:59 a.m., Koenig, Christian wrote:
>>> On x86 with HIGHMEM there is no dma32 zone. Why do we need one on
> x86_64? Can we make x86_64 more like HIGHMEM instead?
>
On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 16:57 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> On 2019-02-21 2:59 a.m., Koenig, Christian wrote:
> > On x86 with HIGHMEM there is no dma32 zone. Why do we need one on
> > > > x86_64? Can we make x86_64 more like HIGHMEM instead?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Felix
> > > >
> >
On 2019-02-21 2:59 a.m., Koenig, Christian wrote:
> On x86 with HIGHMEM there is no dma32 zone. Why do we need one on
>>> x86_64? Can we make x86_64 more like HIGHMEM instead?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Felix
>>>
>> IIRC with x86, the kernel zone is always smaller than any dma32 zone,
>> so we'd al
Am 21.02.19 um 07:47 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
> On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 19:23 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
>> On 2019-02-20 1:41 a.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 17:06 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
On 2019-02-18 3:39 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-02-18
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 19:23 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> On 2019-02-20 1:41 a.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 17:06 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> > > On 2019-02-18 3:39 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 18:07 +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > > >
On 2019-02-20 1:41 a.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 17:06 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
>> On 2019-02-18 3:39 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 18:07 +0100, Christian König wrote:
Am 18.02.19 um 10:47 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
> On Mon, 2019-02-1
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 08:35 +, Koenig, Christian wrote:
> Am 20.02.19 um 09:14 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
> > On 2/20/19 9:07 AM, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 20.02.19 um 07:41 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
> > > > On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 17:06 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> > > > > On 2019-02-18
Am 20.02.19 um 09:14 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
> On 2/20/19 9:07 AM, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 20.02.19 um 07:41 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
>>> On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 17:06 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
On 2019-02-18 3:39 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 18:07 +0100,
On 2/20/19 9:07 AM, Christian König wrote:
Am 20.02.19 um 07:41 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 17:06 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
On 2019-02-18 3:39 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 18:07 +0100, Christian König wrote:
Am 18.02.19 um 10:47 schrieb Thomas He
Am 20.02.19 um 07:41 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 17:06 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
On 2019-02-18 3:39 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 18:07 +0100, Christian König wrote:
Am 18.02.19 um 10:47 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 09:20 +,
On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 17:06 +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> On 2019-02-18 3:39 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 18:07 +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 18.02.19 um 10:47 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
> > > > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 09:20 +, Koenig, Christian wrote:
> > > >
On 2019-02-18 3:39 p.m., Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 18:07 +0100, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 18.02.19 um 10:47 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
>>> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 09:20 +, Koenig, Christian wrote:
Another good question is also why the heck the acc_size counts
tow
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 18:07 +0100, Christian König wrote:
> Am 18.02.19 um 10:47 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
> > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 09:20 +, Koenig, Christian wrote:
> > > Another good question is also why the heck the acc_size counts
> > > towards
> > > the DMA32 zone?
> > DMA32 TTM pages are
Am 18.02.19 um 10:47 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 09:20 +, Koenig, Christian wrote:
Another good question is also why the heck the acc_size counts
towards
the DMA32 zone?
DMA32 TTM pages are accounted in the DMA32 zone. Other pages are not.
Yeah, I'm perfectly aware of
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 09:20 +, Koenig, Christian wrote:
> Another good question is also why the heck the acc_size counts
> towards
> the DMA32 zone?
DMA32 TTM pages are accounted in the DMA32 zone. Other pages are not.
For small persistent allocations using ttm_mem_global_alloc(), they are
a
Another good question is also why the heck the acc_size counts towards
the DMA32 zone?
In other words why should the internal bookkeeping pages be allocated in
the DMA32 zone?
That doesn't sounds valid to me in any way,
Christian.
Am 18.02.19 um 09:02 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
> Hmm,
>
> This
Hmm,
This zone was intended to stop TTM page allocations from exhausting the
DMA32 zone. IIRC dma_alloc_coherent() uses DMA32 by default, which means
if we drop this check, other devices may stop functioning unexpectedly?
However, in the end I'd expect the kernel page allocation system to mak
This is an RFC. I'm not sure this is the right solution, but it
highlights the problem I'm trying to solve.
The dma32_zone limits the acc_size of all allocated BOs to 2GB. On a
64-bit system with hundreds of GB of system memory and GPU memory,
this can become a bottle neck. We're seeing TTM memory
22 matches
Mail list logo
