From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 1 15:33:18 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343871065676; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:33:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sarumont@sigil.org) Received: from mail.sigil.org (mail.sigil.org [208.86.227.164]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7B088FC12; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:33:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sigil.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E3AC046D; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:47:44 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sigil.org Received: from mail.sigil.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sigil.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 0sUc2VkjtQu8; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:47:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: from illusion.portal.sigil.org (ip72-202-157-83.ks.ks.cox.net [72.202.157.83]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.sigil.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FDD3C046B; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:47:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: by illusion.portal.sigil.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:33:07 -0500 From: "Richard Kolkovich" Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:33:07 -0500 To: Robert Noland Message-ID: <20091001153307.GF36488@magus.portal.sigil.org> References: <1253915723.2145.53.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <20090926001158.GA42914@divination.portal.sigil.org> <1253925689.2065.81.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <20090926045706.GB42914@divination.portal.sigil.org> <1253977337.2048.17.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <1253993801.2048.295.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <20090926194802.GA67832@divination.portal.sigil.org> <1254001621.2048.431.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <20091001021855.GE36488@magus.portal.sigil.org> <1254392190.98309.750.camel@balrog.2hip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="m1UC1K4AOz1Ywdkx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1254392190.98309.750.camel@balrog.2hip.net> X-OS: FreeBSD magus 8.0-RC1 i386 X-Mailer: Mutt 1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Composed-With: vim X-PGP-Key: http://sarumont.sigil.org/pubkey.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HD4550 DRI issues X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:33:18 -0000 --m1UC1K4AOz1Ywdkx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 05:16:30AM -0500, Robert Noland wrote: > On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 21:18 -0500, Richard Kolkovich wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 04:47:01PM -0500, Robert Noland wrote: > > >=20 > > > Ok, that eliminates everything to do with the card and X. Let me talk > > > to some folks and see if we can figure out where to go from here... = I'm > > > wondering if this might be BIOS or CPU related now... > > >=20 > >=20 > > Any ideas yet? For some reason, I now need to disable mtrr for my nvid= ia-driver to work (the card > > my 4550 is hopefully replacing...I'm having other issues with nvidia-dr= iver and would prefer an > > open-source solution). I don't think I've tried the radeon with mtrr d= isabled. > >=20 > > My 30 day return window on this card is almost up, so I may end up retu= rning it if we can't figure > > this out. Apparently, a different card wouldn't help, either. :-\ >=20 > All of the evidence suggests that this has nothing to do with the card. > Basically, with the test program the only card specific things that > happen are those that happen at driver load time. We haven't even told > the card about the memory that we have allocated yet. It has been > suggested that it might be a bug in drm's mmap routine, but I can't find > it at this point. It has also been suggested that you run memcheck to > verify the ram, but since things seem to be correct from the kernel > perspective, I don't think that is the issue. >=20 I haven't seen any other issues indicative of RAM failure, but I'll give me= mtest a shot. > The mtrr issue, might be a clue though. It sets the caching mode for > the memory allocation. I'm mostly using PAT now, (particularly with the > patch that I gave you). Did you send me a "memcontrol list", I don't > recall at this point. The x58 appears to deal with memory rather > differently than traditional chipsets, so I wonder if it might not be a > chipset or BIOS bug. >=20 +% sudo memcontrol list Password: memcontrol: can't size range descriptor array: Operation not supported Mabye that's a clue? :-\ (I'm back on my 8.0-RC1 kernel now, btw) > As for nvidia, you can always use nouveau. That will (*should*) get you > EXA and Xv acceleration, but not 3d at this point. Follow the > instructions in the xf86-video-nouveau for getting my kernel patch how > to set things up. However, that driver also uses scatter-gather memory, > perhaps even more so than the radeon driver. So, given what we have > seen so far, I don't know that it will not produce corruption or > possibly worse. >=20 I've given nouveau a shot before, and I'm pretty sure everything worked the= first time (beginning of July) Last time I tried it (more recently...just before I ordered this 455= 0), rotation did not work for me with both monitors. One screen had corruption (much the same as we = see with the 4550) at the top. It was like the screen had the wrong coordinates, though xrandr showe= d the correct info. Either way, I'm pretty sure I remember the (2d) performance being a bit lag= gy for everyday use. > I've spent a fair amount of time digging through the mmap and memory > allocation bits in the kernel, but haven't found anything that looks > wrong. What I don't understand is, why this doesn't effect all or at > least all i386 systems. So, I think it almost has to be chipset > specific. .... Well, I just went back and found one of the prior reports > of this. It looks like that (assuming it is the same cause) was on an > intel 945 chipset running 7.2-RELEASE i386. Have you considered running > amd64? Your i7 is certainly worthy of it and I would be curious to see > if the problem exists when running amd64 also. >=20 Go figure...my first Intel board/CPU, and I stumble across something like t= his. :P I had considered trying amd64 after I saw your setup was amd64. I've never= had too much reason for running amd64, but I could justify it now that I'm using zfs. ;) I may give amd64 a shot later today and let you know if that helps. --=20 Richard Kolkovich sarumont@sigil.org --m1UC1K4AOz1Ywdkx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkrEy7EACgkQfXtD1KVAIbCvXgCgzkQTQoGOo6t0DW8vGTuNUWIg o3oAnAulw38eyfJEv+Dw3ncQ5fCJmnpJ =k+1I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --m1UC1K4AOz1Ywdkx--