From: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
To: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
"Carlos Santa" <carlos.santa@intel.com>,
"Huang Rui" <ray.huang@amd.com>,
"Matthew Auld" <matthew.auld@intel.com>,
"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
"Maxime Ripard" <mripard@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
"David Airlie" <airlied@gmail.com>,
"Simona Vetter" <simona@ffwll.ch>,
"Daniel Colascione" <dancol@dancol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/ttm: Issue direct reclaim at beneficial_order
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 08:11:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aecef1f3-5625-48b2-9117-b14cb1b61e50@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260421012608.1474950-2-matthew.brost@intel.com>
On 4/21/26 03:26, Matthew Brost wrote:
> Triggering kswap at an order higher than beneficial_order makes little
> sense, as the driver has already indicated the optimal order at which
> reclaim is effective. Similarly, issuing direct reclaim or triggering
> kswap at a lower order than beneficial_order is ineffective, since the
> driver does not benefit from reclaiming lower-order pages.
>
> As a result, direct reclaim should only be issued with __GFP_NORETRY at
> exactly beneficial_order, or as a fallback, direct reclaim without
> __GFP_NORETRY at order 0 when failure is not an option.
>
> Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Carlos Santa <carlos.santa@intel.com>
> Cc: Christian Koenig <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Cc: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>
> Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
> Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
> Cc: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
> Cc: David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
> Cc: Simona Vetter <simona@ffwll.ch>
> CC: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
> index 26a3689e5fd9..8425dbcc6c68 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c
> @@ -165,8 +165,8 @@ static struct page *ttm_pool_alloc_page(struct ttm_pool *pool, gfp_t gfp_flags,
> * Do not add latency to the allocation path for allocations orders
> * device tolds us do not bring them additional performance gains.
> */
> - if (beneficial_order && order > beneficial_order)
> - gfp_flags &= ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM;
> + if (order && beneficial_order && order != beneficial_order)
> + gfp_flags &= ~__GFP_RECLAIM;
>
> if (!ttm_pool_uses_dma_alloc(pool)) {
> p = alloc_pages_node(pool->nid, gfp_flags, order);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-21 6:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-21 1:26 [PATCH 0/3] drm/ttm, drm/xe: Avoid reclaim/eviction loops under fragmentation Matthew Brost
2026-04-21 1:26 ` [PATCH 1/3] drm/ttm: Issue direct reclaim at beneficial_order Matthew Brost
2026-04-21 6:11 ` Christian König [this message]
2026-04-22 4:12 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-22 6:41 ` Christian König
2026-04-22 7:32 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2026-04-22 7:41 ` Christian König
2026-04-22 20:41 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-23 8:44 ` Christian König
2026-04-28 13:45 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2026-04-29 22:52 ` Daniel Colascione
2026-04-30 0:11 ` Dave Airlie
2026-04-30 7:59 ` Thomas Hellström
2026-04-30 8:14 ` Christian König
2026-04-30 7:34 ` Christian König
2026-04-30 3:00 ` Matthew Brost
2026-05-01 20:04 ` Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
2026-04-21 1:26 ` [PATCH 2/3] drm/xe: Set TTM device beneficial_order to 9 (2M) Matthew Brost
2026-04-21 1:26 ` [PATCH 3/3] drm/xe: Avoid shrinker reclaim from kswapd under fragmentation Matthew Brost
2026-04-22 8:22 ` Thomas Hellström
2026-04-22 20:27 ` Matthew Brost
2026-04-21 5:56 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for drm/ttm, drm/xe: Avoid reclaim/eviction loops " Patchwork
2026-04-21 6:43 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-04-21 8:29 ` ✗ Xe.CI.FULL: failure " Patchwork
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aecef1f3-5625-48b2-9117-b14cb1b61e50@amd.com \
--to=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=carlos.santa@intel.com \
--cc=dancol@dancol.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
--cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=mripard@kernel.org \
--cc=ray.huang@amd.com \
--cc=simona@ffwll.ch \
--cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox