<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [snb] GPU HANG in gnome-shell (after swap?)" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111512#c6">Comment # 6</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [snb] GPU HANG in gnome-shell (after swap?)" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111512">bug 111512</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:bugzilla@colorremedies.com" title="Chris Murphy <bugzilla@colorremedies.com>"> Chris Murphy</a> <pre>(In reply to Chris Wilson from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=111512#c4">comment #4</a>) > Allocation failure on swap-in is not uncommon when dealing with 5G+ of swap, > the kernel struggles to cope and we make more noise than most. Interesting. This suggests an incongruence between typical 1:1 RAM swap partition sizes by most distro installers, at least for use cases where there will be heavy pressure on RAM rather than incidental swap usage. In your view, is this a case of, "doctor, it hurts when I do this" and the doctor says, "right, so don't do that" or is there room for improvement? Note: these examples are unique in that the test system is using swap on ZRAM. So it should be significantly faster than conventional swap on a partition. Also, these examples have /dev/zram0 sized to 1.5X RAM, but it's reproducible at 1:1. In smaller swap cases, I've seen these same call traces far less frequently, and also oom-killer happens more frequently. > That failure > does not look to be the cause of the later hang, though it may indeed be > related to memory pressure (although being snb it is llc so less susceptible > to most forms of corruption, you can still hypothesize data not making it > to/from swap that leads to context corruption). I would say the memory > layout of the batch supports the hypothesis that the context has been > swapped out and back in. So I am going to err on the side of assuming this > is an invalid context image due to swap. The narrow goal of this torture test is to find ways of improving system responsiveness under heavy swap use. And also it acts much like an unprivileged fork bomb that can, somewhat non-deterministically I'm finding, take down the system (totally unresponsive for >30 minutes). And in doing that, I'm stumbling over other issues like this one. For desktops, it's a problem to not have swap big enough to support hibernation.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>