Hi Monk,
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 3:23 AM Liu, Monk wrote:
>
> [AMD Official Use Only]
>
>
> Hi Daniel/Christian/Andrey
>
>
>
> It looks the voice from you three are spread over those email floods to me,
> the feature we are working on (diagnostic TDR scheme) is pending there for
> more than 6 mo
[AMD Official Use Only]
Daniel
>From the link you share it looks you(or someone else) have quite a bunch
>patches that changes DRM_SCHED or even amdgpu, by that case before they are
>merged to kernel tree I'm wondering if any AMD develop reviewed them ?
They looks to me somehow conflicting wi
[AMD Official Use Only]
>> For me your project exists since a few weeks at most, because that is when
>> your team showed up on dri-devel. That you already spent 6 months on this
>> within amd, on a code area that very much affects shared code, without
>> kicking of any thread on dri-devel isn'
On 9/1/2021 3:26 AM, Felix Kuehling wrote:
On some GPUs the PCIe atomic requirement for KFD depends on the MEC
firmware version. Add a firmware version check for this. The minimum
firmware version that works without atomics can be updated in the
device_info structure for each GPU type.
Signed
On 2021-08-31 10:41 p.m., Alex Sierra
wrote:
During svm restore pages interrupt handler, kfd_process ref count was
never dropped when xnack was disabled. Therefore, the object was never
released.
Good catch, but if xnack is off, we should not get he
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 01:04:43PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> >> driver code is not really involved in updating the CPU mappings. Maybe
> >> it's something we need to do in the migration helpers.
> > It looks like I'm totally misunderstanding what you are adding here
> > then. Why do we need a
[AMD Official Use Only]
We were seeing process leaks on a couple of machines running certain tests that
triggered vm faults on purpose.
I think svm_range_restore_pages gets called unconditionally on vm fault
handling (unless the retry interrupt payload bit is supposed to be clear with
xnack off
Am 2021-09-01 um 7:04 a.m. schrieb Lazar, Lijo:
>
>
> On 9/1/2021 3:26 AM, Felix Kuehling wrote:
>> On some GPUs the PCIe atomic requirement for KFD depends on the MEC
>> firmware version. Add a firmware version check for this. The minimum
>> firmware version that works without atomics can be updat
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 6:19 AM Liu, Monk wrote:
>
> [AMD Official Use Only]
>
> Daniel
>
> From the link you share it looks you(or someone else) have quite a bunch
> patches that changes DRM_SCHED or even amdgpu, by that case before they are
> merged to kernel tree I'm wondering if any AMD devel
Am 2021-09-01 um 4:29 a.m. schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 01:04:43PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
driver code is not really involved in updating the CPU mappings. Maybe
it's something we need to do in the migration helpers.
>>> It looks like I'm totally misundersta
On 2021-09-01 9:45 a.m., Kim, Jonathan
wrote:
[AMD Official Use Only]
We were seeing process leaks on a couple
of machines running certain tests that triggered vm faults
[Public]
What I wanted to ask was -
Whether user mode application relies only on link properties alone to assume
atomic ops are supported? If they check only link properties and if the
firmware doesn't work fine, should it be still marked as supported?
Basically, what is the purpose of exposin
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 12:30 PM Lazar, Lijo wrote:
>
> [Public]
>
>
> What I wanted to ask was -
>
> Whether user mode application relies only on link properties alone to assume
> atomic ops are supported? If they check only link properties and if the
> firmware doesn't work fine, should it be s
Am 2021-09-01 um 12:30 p.m. schrieb Lazar, Lijo:
>
> [Public]
>
>
> What I wanted to ask was -
>
> Whether user mode application relies only on link properties alone to
> assume atomic ops are supported? If they check only link properties
> and if the firmware doesn't work fine, should it be still
[Public]
I wouldn’t know if it was another bug elsewhere.
From what I was seeing, the leak was coming from !p->xnack_enable on the
svm_range_restore_pages call.
If it helps, I saw this on Aldebaran where a shader does some bad memory access
on purpose on a debugged ptraced child process.
The vm
Am 2021-09-01 um 12:59 p.m. schrieb Kim, Jonathan:
>
> [Public]
>
>
> [Public]
>
>
> I wouldn’t know if it was another bug elsewhere.
>
> From what I was seeing, the leak was coming from !p->xnack_enable on
> the svm_range_restore_pages call.
>
> If it helps, I saw this on Aldebaran where a shader
On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 01:20, Alex Deucher wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 6:19 AM Liu, Monk wrote:
> >
> > [AMD Official Use Only]
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > From the link you share it looks you(or someone else) have quite a bunch
> > patches that changes DRM_SCHED or even amdgpu, by that case be
If it's not too late, please add
Fixes: 2383f56bbe4a ("drm/amdkfd: page table restore through svm API")
Thanks,
Felix
Am 2021-09-01 um 1:54 p.m. schrieb Felix Kuehling:
> Am 2021-09-01 um 12:59 p.m. schrieb Kim, Jonathan:
>> [Public]
>>
>>
>> [Public]
>>
>>
>> I wouldn’t know if it was anothe
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:50 AM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 01.09.21 um 02:46 schrieb Monk Liu:
> > issue:
> > in cleanup_job the cancle_delayed_work will cancel a TO timer
> > even the its corresponding job is still running.
> >
> > fix:
> > do not cancel the timer in cleanup_job, instead do the
Hi Dave, Daniel,
Fixes for 5.15.
The following changes since commit 8f0284f190e6a0aa09015090568c03f18288231a:
Merge tag 'amd-drm-next-5.15-2021-08-27' of
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/agd5f/linux into drm-next (2021-08-30 09:06:03
+1000)
are available in the Git repository at:
https://g
On 2021-09-01 6:03 p.m., Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 11:40:43AM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
Am 2021-09-01 um 4:29 a.m. schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 01:04:43PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
driver code is not really involved in updating the CPU mappings. Ma
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 11:40:43AM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
>
> Am 2021-09-01 um 4:29 a.m. schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 01:04:43PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> driver code is not really involved in updating the CPU mappings. Maybe
> it's something we need
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 07:07:34PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> On 2021-09-01 6:03 p.m., Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 11:40:43AM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> > > Am 2021-09-01 um 4:29 a.m. schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 01:04:43PM -0400, Felix Kueh
Thanks Felix for the detailed explanation.
Thanks,
Lijo
On 9/1/2021 10:17 PM, Felix Kuehling wrote:
Am 2021-09-01 um 12:30 p.m. schrieb Lazar, Lijo:
[Public]
What I wanted to ask was -
Whether user mode application relies only on link properties alone to
assume atomic ops are supported? If
[AMD Official Use Only]
>>>
I'm not sure I can add much to help this along, I'm sure Alex has some internal
training,
Once your driver is upstream, it belongs to upstream, you can maintain it, but
you no longer control it 100%, it's a tradeoff, it's not one companies always
understand.
Usually
25 matches
Mail list logo
