Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87edgv4x3i.fsf@vps.thesusis.net> <559d0fa5-953a-4a97-b03b-5eb1287c83d8@leemhuis.info>
 <CAPM=9tw-8pQWFso0zuLqpsqd5BSHWtc4As9ttdjY-DDr70EMqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bdb238b6-60c7-4f26-81d0-9e62cd5dd326@gmail.com> <CADnq5_NVGS1XykxGxpcu_bpPbzboCUJQkcCF3r+0N9a23KUgiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <96e2e13c-f01c-4baf-a9a3-cbaa48fb10c7@amd.com> <CADnq5_NBfeAXEyQw0gnSd67=tR-bUKg8w=10+4z9pGGuRnP9uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87jzq2ixtm.fsf@vps.thesusis.net>
In-Reply-To: <87jzq2ixtm.fsf@vps.thesusis.net>
From:   Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 17:13:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CADnq5_Ou-MVVm0rdWDmDnJNLkWUayXzO26uCEtz3ucNa4Ghy2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Radeon regression in 6.6 kernel
To:     Phillip Susi <phill@thesusis.net>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov@amd.com>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 6:24=E2=80=AFPM Phillip Susi <phill@thesusis.net> w=
rote:
>
> Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.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.

Alex