On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 9:47 PM Sven Joachim <svenjoac@xxxxxx> wrote:
On 2021-11-03 21:32 +0100, Karol Herbst wrote:Yeah, I think this is probably the right approach.
On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 9:29 PM Karol Herbst <kherbst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Maybe, but since the memory leaks reported by Erhard only started to
On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 8:52 PM Sven Joachim <svenjoac@xxxxxx> wrote:maybe not.. but I did remember there being a few tmm related patches
On 2021-11-01 10:17 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:could be related to 265ec0dd1a0d18f4114f62c0d4a794bb4e729bc1
From: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>Alas, this innocuous looking commit causes one of my systems to lock up
commit 0db55f9a1bafbe3dac750ea669de9134922389b5 upstream.
We need to cleanup the fences for ghost objects as well.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Erhard F. <erhard_f@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Erhard F. <erhard_f@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Huang Rui <ray.huang@xxxxxxx>
Bug: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.kernel.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D214029&data=04%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7C9b70f83c53c74b35fee808d99f1091b3%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637715715806624439%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=UIo0hw0OHeLlGL%2Bcj%2Fjt%2FgTwniaJoNmhgDHSFvymhCc%3D&reserved=0
Bug: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.kernel.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D214447&data=04%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7C9b70f83c53c74b35fee808d99f1091b3%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637715715806634433%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=TIAUb6AdYm2Bo0%2BvFZUFPS8yu55orjnfxMLCmUgC%2FDk%3D&reserved=0
CC: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.freedesktop.org%2Fpatch%2Fmsgid%2F20211020173211.2247-1-christian.koenig%40amd.com&data=04%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7C9b70f83c53c74b35fee808d99f1091b3%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637715715806634433%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=c9i7AR44MVUyZuXHZkLOCBx2%2BZeetq8alGtbz0Wgqzk%3D&reserved=0
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c
@@ -322,6 +322,7 @@ static void ttm_transfered_destroy(struc
struct ttm_transfer_obj *fbo;
fbo = container_of(bo, struct ttm_transfer_obj, base);
+ dma_resv_fini(&fbo->base.base._resv);
ttm_bo_put(fbo->bo);
kfree(fbo);
}
as soon as run startx. This happens with the nouveau driver, two other
systems with radeon and intel graphics are not affected. Also I only
noticed it in 5.10.77. Kernels 5.15 and 5.14.16 are not affected, and I
do not use 5.4 anymore.
I am not familiar with nouveau's ttm management and what has changed
there between 5.10 and 5.14, but maybe one of their developers can shed
a light on this.
Cheers,
Sven
which only hurt nouveau :/ I guess one could do a git bisect to
figure out what change "fixes" it.
show up in 5.14 (if I read the bugzilla reports correctly), perhaps the
patch should simply be reverted on earlier kernels?
On which GPU do you see this problem?On an old GeForce 8500 GT, the whole PC is rather ancient.
Cheers,
Sven