linux-kernel - Re: Radeon regression in 6.6 kernel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CADnq5_MYEWx=e1LBLeVs0UbR5_xEScjDyw_-75mLe8RAMnqh6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2023 08:50:56 -0500
From:   Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com>
To:     Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@...il.com>
Cc:     Phillip Susi <phill@...susis.net>,
        Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Subject: Re: Radeon regression in 6.6 kernel

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:45 PM Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-28 17:13, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 6:24 PM Phillip Susi <phill@...susis.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>> In that case those are the already known problems with the scheduler
> >>>> changes, aren't they?
> >>>
> >>> Yes.  Those changes went into 6.7 though, not 6.6 AFAIK.  Maybe I'm
> >>> misunderstanding what the original report was actually testing.  If it
> >>> was 6.7, then try reverting:
> >>> 56e449603f0ac580700621a356d35d5716a62ce5
> >>> b70438004a14f4d0f9890b3297cd66248728546c
> >>
> >> At some point it was suggested that I file a gitlab issue, but I took
> >> this to mean it was already known and being worked on.  -rc3 came out
> >> today and still has the problem.  Is there a known issue I could track?
> >>
> >
> > At this point, unless there are any objections, I think we should just
> > revert the two patches
> Uhm, no.
>
> Why "the two" patches?
>
> This email, part of this thread,
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/87r0kircdo.fsf@vps.thesusis.net/
>
> clearly states that reverting *only* this commit,
> 56e449603f0ac5 drm/sched: Convert the GPU scheduler to variable number of run-queues
> *does not* mitigate the failed suspend. (Furthermore, this commit doesn't really change
> anything operational, other than using an allocated array, instead of a static one, in DRM,
> while the 2nd patch is solely contained within the amdgpu driver code.)
>
> Leaving us with only this change,
> b70438004a14f4 drm/amdgpu: move buffer funcs setting up a level
> to be at fault, as the kernel log attached in the linked email above shows.
>
> The conclusion is that only b70438004a14f4 needs reverting.

b70438004a14f4 was a fix for 56e449603f0ac5.  Without b70438004a14f4,
56e449603f0ac5 breaks amdgpu.

Alex