drm/radeon spamming alloc_contig_range: [xxx, yyy) PFNs busy busy

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 08:38:15AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> By default config this should not be used on x86.
> > What do you mean by that statement?
> 
> I mean that the 16 mbytes for generic CMA area is not a default on x86:
> 
> config CMA_SIZE_MBYTES
>          int "Size in Mega Bytes"
>          depends on !CMA_SIZE_SEL_PERCENTAGE
>          default 0 if X86
>          default 16
d7be003a9d275299f5ee36bbdf156654f59e08e9 (v3.18-2122-gd7be003a9d27)
is there the 0MB if-x86 default was added to the tree. Prior to that, it
was 16MiB, and that's where my system picked up the value from.

I have a record of all my kconfigs, because I use oldconfig each time
(going back 8 years to 2.6.27)

# Added in 3.12.0-00001-g5f258d0
CONFIG_CMA=y 
# Added in 3.16.0-rc6-00042-g67dd8f3
CONFIG_CMA_ALIGNMENT=8
CONFIG_CMA_AREAS=7
CONFIG_CMA_SIZE_MBYTES=16
CONFIG_CMA_SIZE_SEL_MBYTES=y
CONFIG_DMA_CMA=y

So the next question, is why did I pick up CMA in
3.16.0-rc6-00042-g67dd8f3... I'll poke at that.

> > Yes, I'd say if there's a fallback without much penalty, nowarn makes
> > sense. If the fallback just tries multiple addresses until success, then
> > the warning should only be issued when too many attempts have been made.
> On the other hand, if the warnings are correlated with high kernel CPU usage, 
> it's arguably better to be warned.
Keep the rate-limit on the warning for cases like this?

> >> > The rate of the problem starts slow, and also is relatively low on an idle
> >> > system (my screens blank at night, no xscreensaver running), but it still ramps
> >> > up over time (to the point of generating 2.5GB/hour of "(timestamp)
> >> > alloc_contig_range: [83e4d9, 83e4da) PFNs busy"), with various addresses (~100
> >> > unique ranges for a day).
> >> >
> >> > My X workload is ~50 chrome tabs and ~20 terminals (over 3x 24" monitors w/ 9
> >> > virtual desktops per monitor).
> >> So IIUC, except the messages, everything actually works fine?
> > There's high kernel CPU usage that seems to roughly correlate with the
> > messages, but I can't yet tell if that's due to the syslog itself, or
> > repeated alloc_contig_range requests.
> You could try running perf top.
Will do in the morning.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2 at gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136