On 1/6/17 9:14 AM, Matthew Macy wrote:
> > Please try the drm-next branch now. Up until very recently, the > > shrinkers responsible for culling ttm/gem allocations were never run. > > I've now implemented the shrinker, but it's driven from vm_lowmem, so > > you'll probably still see what looks like a leak until you hit low > > memory conditions. The shrinker should probably be run from > > uma_timeout, but there isn't an eventhandler for that and I haven't > > looked any further. > > > > -M > > Hi, > > I am now testing the `drm-next` branch, but I'm finding it crashes much > more frequently (a la > https://github.com/FreeBSDDesktop/freebsd-base-graphics/issues/96) than > `drm-next-4.7`. While the 4.7 branch would sometimes only last a few > minutes, it would sometimes run for a day or more. On `drm-next`, > however, I think I'm yet to have 20 minutes of uptime. So, I haven't run > into the memory shrinker yet because I haven't had enough uptime to use > lots of memory. :) I will continue testing... any specific things I > ought to be doing? > I just did the merge and it's using a relatively untested new KPI so regressions aren't too surprising I'm afraid. #96 is more or less content free in terms of providing useful information. Getting a core + backtrace would be a lot more helpful. See the repo's wiki for details on improving your odds of getting a core.
I have found the following has enabled me to catch kernel panic's pretty reliably on the drm-next branch when i have the i915kms module loaded:
dev.drm.skip_ddb=1 -pete -- Pete Wright p...@nomadlogic.org nomadlogicLA _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
