From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout-p-101.mailbox.org (mout-p-101.mailbox.org [80.241.56.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B329044C646 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2026 07:37:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.151 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789544273; cv=none; b=O064CbNCcfqbs78adS6dHZFzWTSIkP77IrJdlX3d42jc+3PsovDZ/tPz1MWt70BUYqBv6uWs5w5uCCsHOpT8M0JQzyfxfjWQlnWrwUWmyyX0nozcSy3SJqMpfmXf0BMPVz75G88BHnu1kpxs+6dcIRxDDhgBI7C6PguE3KCFVXE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789544273; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GDtzL67scSq2UWnFotGDkOZ3m1EtjuZAhaUshRza66s=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=WMJai4Saf4gJOkW3uS4s4kMwuuPR7VEwUcZSpwITCN+WsLZJ7akfs2knKK7aCL/mr1FWnDVrMN53VfRKa5O5/DZgak48XCykZns3sLwexZ4pRZij5Qsv3jMUIXYuFq79dvcE9e0fLf8UlVHFtBMWAbEpD/rhs8QLKIn8+FWO9W8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b=siM4TMnc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.151 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mailbox.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailbox.org header.i=@mailbox.org header.b="siM4TMnc" Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-101.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4hl9hh5XVyz8ty1; Wed, 16 Sep 2026 09:37:40 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailbox.org; s=mail20150812; t=1789544260; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GDtzL67scSq2UWnFotGDkOZ3m1EtjuZAhaUshRza66s=; b=siM4TMnch2rn4U1j6hPM6Y+Jrosea3tVMCzDOpwciv+u9hM/WtCLYH/76ONpw67XdtlStN R8kouwYNsLsggAhrLqD4C0+4IVH+Fh2wfBb6qjM17f+S/a+Nyo1B28TuvNAbt0X1hUoTSh BAAAxddN/HeS4UuSn3vdf8CpMUka9TSEAzC85DX28ZqI3MFJ5pHCGE5mXXU2uWU0mdnR7/ mVGIVF+9UO3fCdgsSoTxdYBIwRsy6cOv9NTjnA3k70WBpgJnXXqrY8qNqpMAg6/erHcxlm qOiZgZaUG6GVqbXwV689je8/JWmbrGG1LJlbsVHr1FQVns0/UHYJdpr3QXMhSA== Message-ID: <763ba7b5895ac8f850662eaad84a2d5b523a8902.camel@mailbox.org> Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] drm/sched: FAIR policy causes serious performance degradation at max GPU load on 9070XT From: Philipp Stanner Reply-To: phasta@kernel.org To: Tvrtko Ursulin , phasta@kernel.org, Luke.Wildhardt@proton.me Cc: Danilo Krummrich , "matthew.brost@intel.com" , "ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com" , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , "regressions@lists.linux.dev" , "amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2026 09:37:34 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <6e2a207e-4db6-4d47-b1f6-9cb13b8d6eeb@igalia.com> <4OmZej9WiJ6-rsJ_lFcrmwtClAwMdN4oHXWH0p8FkIrhAn4LKS4O3q36wrdZrvjZHBNS8PZsvaIvR-1aFZfF2tDiy1cdMzTYNylcbGDQN68=@proton.me> <932892b196f7bbba7f5e9bff22f9b484854aaccc.camel@mailbox.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MBO-RS-META: t7tj41edfc77zcym3yib1pm5n7ffxnii X-MBO-RS-ID: 134a4ce73af47e1eb91 On Wed, 2026-08-12 at 13:29 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > Not sure if you are calling me out here or not, since apart from a=20 > direct mention, the lore link above is also a reply to my email, so for= =20 > the record, I did give my ack for those patches. Plus I spent time=20 > testing them. So if you were in fact calling me out, I don't see how=20 > that is warranted. And on the wider topic I also never shied away from= =20 > the non-glamorous work. I was addressing what I perceive to be the general problems within DRM =E2=80=93 I still believe the general points are valid, but want to stress = that it's a collective problem in which we all play a role, though no one is the protagonist. I mentioned the media outlet (which quoted your name) as part of the problem because there are external cheerleaders for performance (whose unconditional priority is *the* reason for the design mistakes in drm_sched) and features. Nevertheless, I apologize for the rough tone and want to emphasize that you're indeed the most engaged contributor and have improved many things. The unit tests alone are worth their weight in silver. The wider, problematic patterns in DRM might be worth addressing with the appropriate tenderness in a suitable format; I will try to collect my thoughts on that. Regards, Philipp