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
36 matches
Mail list logo
