Re: PQ_LAUNDRY: unexpected behaviour

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
pete_at_nomadlogic.org
nomadlogicLA