On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 06:22:36PM +, Mateo Lozano, Oscar wrote:
> > > This test hasn't been terribly effective at provoking the bug it tries
> > > to hit, so I think we can just unconditionally use the lower limit.
> > > That also helps with the really long runtime of this case a bit.
> > > -D
> > This test hasn't been terribly effective at provoking the bug it tries
> > to hit, so I think we can just unconditionally use the lower limit.
> > That also helps with the really long runtime of this case a bit.
> > -Daniel
Understood. I´ll simplify the patch and send it again then.
> FWIW,
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 01:32:13PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:36:22AM +, oscar.ma...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Oscar Mateo
> >
> > With Full PPGTT, each new fd creates a new context and thus a new
> > PPGTT, so we have to reduce the number of simultaneous fds or
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:36:22AM +, oscar.ma...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Oscar Mateo
>
> With Full PPGTT, each new fd creates a new context and thus a new
> PPGTT, so we have to reduce the number of simultaneous fds or face
> OOM problems. For every new PPGTT, its PDEs are stored in the GGT
From: Oscar Mateo
With Full PPGTT, each new fd creates a new context and thus a new
PPGTT, so we have to reduce the number of simultaneous fds or face
OOM problems. For every new PPGTT, its PDEs are stored in the GGTT
which imposes a limit of 1024 new contexts. We want to leave at
least 1/4 of th
