On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 7:28 PM Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> Phillip Susi writes:
>
> > And it works, but 6.7-rc5 does not, even though it includes that patch.
> > Here's the syslog from the attempt. I'll start bisecting again.
>
> I checked out the patch that got merged upstream and it also fails.
Phillip Susi writes:
> And it works, but 6.7-rc5 does not, even though it includes that patch.
> Here's the syslog from the attempt. I'll start bisecting again.
I checked out the patch that got merged upstream and it also fails. I
looked at the two commits, and I see what happened. Your origi
On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 3:40 PM Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> Alex Deucher writes:
>
> > Phillip,
> >
> > Can you test this patch? I was not able to repro the issue on the
> > navi2x card I had handy, but I think it should fix it.
>
> I pulled -rc4 and it still had the problem. I applied this patch, a
Alex Deucher writes:
> Phillip,
>
> Can you test this patch? I was not able to repro the issue on the
> navi2x card I had handy, but I think it should fix it.
I pulled -rc4 and it still had the problem. I applied this patch, and
yes, it fixed it!
Phillip,
Can you test this patch? I was not able to repro the issue on the
navi2x card I had handy, but I think it should fix it.
Thanks,
Alex
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 3:49 PM Alex Deucher wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 3:10 PM Alex Deucher wrote:
> >
> > Actually I think I see the proble
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:47 PM Luben Tuikov wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-29 22:36, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > On 2023-11-29 15:49, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 3:10 PM Alex Deucher wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Actually I think I see the problem. I'll try and send out a patch
> >>> later today
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:36 PM Luben Tuikov wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-29 15:49, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 3:10 PM Alex Deucher wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually I think I see the problem. I'll try and send out a patch
> >> later today to test.
> >
> > Does the attached patch fix it?
On 2023-11-29 22:36, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> On 2023-11-29 15:49, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 3:10 PM Alex Deucher wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually I think I see the problem. I'll try and send out a patch
>>> later today to test.
>>
>> Does the attached patch fix it?
>
> Thanks for the p
On 2023-11-29 15:49, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 3:10 PM Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> Actually I think I see the problem. I'll try and send out a patch
>> later today to test.
>
> Does the attached patch fix it?
Thanks for the patch, Alex.
Is it possible for AMD to also reproduc
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 3:10 PM Alex Deucher wrote:
>
> Actually I think I see the problem. I'll try and send out a patch
> later today to test.
Does the attached patch fix it?
Alex
>
> Alex
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 1:52 PM Alex Deucher wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:41 AM Luben
Luben Tuikov writes:
> I remember that the problem was really that amdgpu called
> drm_sched_entity_init(),
> in amdgpu_ttm_set_buffer_funcs_status() without actually having initialized
> the scheduler
> used therein. For instance, the code before commit b70438004a14f4, looked
> like this:
>
Actually I think I see the problem. I'll try and send out a patch
later today to test.
Alex
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 1:52 PM Alex Deucher wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:41 AM Luben Tuikov wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-11-29 10:22, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:50 AM Alex D
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:41 AM Luben Tuikov wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-29 10:22, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:50 AM Alex Deucher wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:45 PM Luben Tuikov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 2023-11-28 17:13, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 202
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:21 AM Luben Tuikov wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-29 08:50, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:45 PM Luben Tuikov wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2023-11-28 17:13, Alex Deucher wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 6:24 PM Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> Alex Deucher writ
On 2023-11-29 10:22, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:50 AM Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:45 PM Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2023-11-28 17:13, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 6:24 PM Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> Alex Deucher writes:
>>
On 2023-11-29 08:50, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:45 PM Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-11-28 17:13, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 6:24 PM Phillip Susi wrote:
Alex Deucher writes:
>> In that case those are the already known problems with
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:50 AM Alex Deucher wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:45 PM Luben Tuikov wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-11-28 17:13, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 6:24 PM Phillip Susi wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Alex Deucher writes:
> > >>
> > In that case those are the a
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:45 PM Luben Tuikov wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-28 17:13, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 6:24 PM Phillip Susi wrote:
> >>
> >> Alex Deucher writes:
> >>
> In that case those are the already known problems with the scheduler
> changes, aren't they?
>
On 2023-11-28 17:13, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 6:24 PM Phillip Susi wrote:
>>
>> Alex Deucher writes:
>>
In that case those are the already known problems with the scheduler
changes, aren't they?
>>>
>>> Yes. Those changes went into 6.7 though, not 6.6 AFAIK. Maybe
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 6:24 PM Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> Alex Deucher writes:
>
> >> In that case those are the already known problems with the scheduler
> >> changes, aren't they?
> >
> > Yes. Those changes went into 6.7 though, not 6.6 AFAIK. Maybe I'm
> > misunderstanding what the original re
Alex Deucher writes:
>> In that case those are the already known problems with the scheduler
>> changes, aren't they?
>
> Yes. Those changes went into 6.7 though, not 6.6 AFAIK. Maybe I'm
> misunderstanding what the original report was actually testing. If it
> was 6.7, then try reverting:
> 5
On 2023-11-21 17:05, Phillip Susi wrote:
> Alex Deucher writes:
>
>> Does reverting 56e449603f0ac580700621a356d35d5716a62ce5 alone fix it?
>> Can you also attach your full dmesg log for the failed suspend?
>
> No, it doesn't. Here is the full syslog from the boot with only that
> revert:
>
Th
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 5:40 PM Phillip Susi wrote:
>
> Alex Deucher writes:
>
> > Yes. Those changes went into 6.7 though, not 6.6 AFAIK. Maybe I'm
> > misunderstanding what the original report was actually testing. If it
> > was 6.7, then try reverting:
> > 56e449603f0ac580700621a356d35d5716
Alex Deucher writes:
> Yes. Those changes went into 6.7 though, not 6.6 AFAIK. Maybe I'm
> misunderstanding what the original report was actually testing. If it
> was 6.7, then try reverting:
> 56e449603f0ac580700621a356d35d5716a62ce5
> b70438004a14f4d0f9890b3297cd66248728546c
I had been runn
Christian König writes:
> Well none of the commits mentioned can affect radeon in any way. Radeon
> simply doesn't use the scheduler.
>
> My suspicion is that the user is actually using amdgpu instead of
> radeon. The switch potentially occurred accidentally, for example by
> compiling amdgpu
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 11:24 AM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 20.11.23 um 17:08 schrieb Alex Deucher:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:57 AM Christian König
> > wrote:
> >> Am 19.11.23 um 07:47 schrieb Dave Airlie:
> On 12.11.23 01:46, Phillip Susi wrote:
> > I had been testing some thing
Am 20.11.23 um 17:08 schrieb Alex Deucher:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:57 AM Christian König
wrote:
Am 19.11.23 um 07:47 schrieb Dave Airlie:
On 12.11.23 01:46, Phillip Susi wrote:
I had been testing some things on a post 6.6-rc5 kernel for a week or
two and then when I pulled to a post 6.6 re
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:57 AM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 19.11.23 um 07:47 schrieb Dave Airlie:
> >> On 12.11.23 01:46, Phillip Susi wrote:
> >>> I had been testing some things on a post 6.6-rc5 kernel for a week or
> >>> two and then when I pulled to a post 6.6 release kernel, I found that
Am 19.11.23 um 07:47 schrieb Dave Airlie:
On 12.11.23 01:46, Phillip Susi wrote:
I had been testing some things on a post 6.6-rc5 kernel for a week or
two and then when I pulled to a post 6.6 release kernel, I found that
system suspend was broken. It seems that the radeon driver failed to
suspe
On 11/19/23 20:48, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 19.11.23 14:24, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> AFAIK commit c07bf1636f0005 ("MAINTAINERS: Update the GPU Scheduler email")
>> doesn't seem to do with this regression as it doesn't change any amdgpu code
>> that may
On 19.11.23 14:24, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 04:47:01PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>> On 12.11.23 01:46, Phillip Susi wrote:
I had been testing some things on a post 6.6-rc5 kernel for a week or
two and then when I pulled to a post 6.6 release kernel, I found that
>>>
On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 04:47:01PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> > On 12.11.23 01:46, Phillip Susi wrote:
> > > I had been testing some things on a post 6.6-rc5 kernel for a week or
> > > two and then when I pulled to a post 6.6 release kernel, I found that
> > > system suspend was broken. It se
>
> On 12.11.23 01:46, Phillip Susi wrote:
> > I had been testing some things on a post 6.6-rc5 kernel for a week or
> > two and then when I pulled to a post 6.6 release kernel, I found that
> > system suspend was broken. It seems that the radeon driver failed to
> > suspend, leaving the display d
Lo!
On 12.11.23 01:46, Phillip Susi wrote:
> I had been testing some things on a post 6.6-rc5 kernel for a week or
> two and then when I pulled to a post 6.6 release kernel, I found that
> system suspend was broken. It seems that the radeon driver failed to
> suspend, leaving the display dead, th
Bagas Sanjaya writes:
> Please show the full bisect log, and also tell why these commits are
> skipped.
Two of them would not compile and one would not boot.
Here's the log.
# bad: [4bbdb725a36b0d235f3b832bd0c1e885f0442d9f] Merge tag
'iommu-updates-v6.7' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 07:46:41PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
> I had been testing some things on a post 6.6-rc5 kernel for a week or
> two and then when I pulled to a post 6.6 release kernel, I found that
> system suspend was broken. It seems that the radeon driver failed to
> suspend, leaving th
I had been testing some things on a post 6.6-rc5 kernel for a week or
two and then when I pulled to a post 6.6 release kernel, I found that
system suspend was broken. It seems that the radeon driver failed to
suspend, leaving the display dead, the wayland display server hung, and
the system still
37 matches
Mail list logo
