LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michel Dänzer" <>
To: "Christian König" <>,
	"Ilia Mirkin" <>
Cc: amd-gfx mailing list <>,
	dri-devel <>,
	LKML <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/ttm: Only allocate huge pages with new flag TTM_PAGE_FLAG_TRANSHUGE
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 18:33:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 2018-04-29 09:02 AM, Christian König wrote:
> Am 29.04.2018 um 01:02 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
>> On 2018-04-28 06:30 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Michel Dänzer <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> From: Michel Dänzer <>
>>>> Previously, TTM would always (with CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE enabled)
>>>> try to allocate huge pages. However, not all drivers can take advantage
>>>> of huge pages, but they would incur the overhead for allocating and
>>>> freeing them anyway.
>>>> Now, drivers which can take advantage of huge pages need to set the new
>>>> flag TTM_PAGE_FLAG_TRANSHUGE to get them. Drivers not setting this flag
>>>> no longer incur any overhead for allocating or freeing huge pages.
>>>> v2:
>>>> * Also guard swapping of consecutive pages in ttm_get_pages
>>>> * Reword commit log, hopefully clearer now
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <>
>>> Both I and lots of other people, based on reports, are still seeing
>>> plenty of issues with this as late as 4.16.4.
>> "lots of other people", "plenty of issues" sounds a bit exaggerated from
>> what I've seen. FWIW, while I did see the original messages myself, I
>> haven't seen any since Christian's original fix (see below), neither
>> with amdgpu nor radeon, even before this patch you followed up to.
>>> Admittedly I'm on nouveau, but others have reported issues with
>>> radeon/amdgpu as well. It's been going on since the feature was merged
>>> in v4.15, with what seems like little investigation from the authors
>>> introducing the feature.
>> That's not a fair assessment. See
>> and following
>> comments.
>> Christian fixed the original issue in
>> d0bc0c2a31c95002d37c3cc511ffdcab851b3256 "swiotlb: suppress warning when
>> __GFP_NOWARN is set". Christian did his best to try and get the fix in
>> before 4.15 final, but for reasons beyond his control, it was delayed
>> until 4.16-rc1 and then backported to 4.15.5.
>> Unfortunately, there was an swiotlb regression (not directly related to
>> Christian's work) shortly after this fix, also in 4.16-rc1, which is now
>> fixed in 4.17-rc1 and will be backported to 4.16.y.
> And that's exactly the reason why I intentionally kept this enabled for
> all users of the TTM DMA page pool and not put it behind a flag.
> This change has surfaced quite a number of bugs in the swiotlb code
> which could have caused issues before. It's just that those code path
> where never exercised massively before.
> Additional to that using huge pages is beneficial for the MM and CPU TLB
> (not implemented yet) even when the GPU driver can't make much use of it.

Do I understand correctly that you're against this patch?

AFAIU the only benefit of huge pages with a driver which doesn't take
advantage of them directly is "for the MM". Can you describe a bit more
what that benefit is exactly? Is it expected to outweigh the cost of
allocating / freeing huge pages?

>> It looks like there's at least one more bug left, but it's not clear yet
>> when that was introduced, whether it's directly related to Christian's
>> work, or indeed what the impact is. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
> Well my patches surfaced the problems, but the underlying issues where
> present even before those changes and I'm very well involved in fixing
> the underlying issues.
> I even considered to just revert the huge page path for the DMA pool
> allocator, but it's just that the TTM patches seem to work exactly as
> they are intended. So that doesn't feel like doing the right thing here.

I agree. Has anyone reported this to the DMA/SWIOTLB developers?

Earthling Michel Dänzer               |     
Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer

  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-30 16:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-26 15:06 [PATCH 1/2] drm/ttm: Add TTM_PAGE_FLAG_TRANSHUGE Michel Dänzer
2018-04-26 15:06 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/ttm: Use GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT for allocating huge pages Michel Dänzer
2018-04-29  7:04   ` Christian König
2018-04-27  2:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] drm/ttm: Add TTM_PAGE_FLAG_TRANSHUGE zhoucm1
2018-04-27  8:41   ` Michel Dänzer
2018-04-27 13:08 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/ttm: Only allocate huge pages with new flag TTM_PAGE_FLAG_TRANSHUGE Michel Dänzer
2018-04-28 16:30   ` Ilia Mirkin
2018-04-28 23:02     ` Michel Dänzer
2018-04-28 23:56       ` Ilia Mirkin
2018-05-02  8:08         ` Michel Dänzer
2018-04-29  7:02       ` Christian König
2018-04-30 16:33         ` Michel Dänzer [this message]
2018-04-30 18:22           ` Christian König
2018-04-30 23:15             ` Dave Airlie
2018-05-01 13:59               ` Michel Dänzer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/ttm: Only allocate huge pages with new flag TTM_PAGE_FLAG_TRANSHUGE' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).