Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Thomas Hellström]

Christian, Are you OK with merging the TTM brances from the i915 TTM 
enablement series through the intel tree?

Thanks,
Thomas

Re: Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Christian König]

Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip to merge a large patch set 
for TTM through drm-misc-next.

I'm pretty sure we will run into merge conflicts if you try to push your 
changes through the Intel tree.

Christian.

Am 02.06.21 um 10:26 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> Christian, Are you OK with merging the TTM brances from the i915 TTM 
> enablement series through the intel tree?
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>

Re: Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Thomas Hellström (Intel)]

On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
> Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip to merge a large patch 
> set for TTM through drm-misc-next.
>
> I'm pretty sure we will run into merge conflicts if you try to push 
> your changes through the Intel tree.
>
> Christian.

OK, so what would be the best approach here?, Adding the TTM patches to 
drm-misc-next when your set has landed?

Thanks,

Thomas

Re: Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Christian König]

Am 02.06.21 um 11:16 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
>
> On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
>> Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip to merge a large patch 
>> set for TTM through drm-misc-next.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure we will run into merge conflicts if you try to push 
>> your changes through the Intel tree.
>>
>> Christian.
>
> OK, so what would be the best approach here?, Adding the TTM patches 
> to drm-misc-next when your set has landed?

I think I will send out out my set to Matthew once more for review, then 
push the common TTM stuff to drm-misc-next as much as possible.

Then you should be able to land your stuff to drm-misc-next and rebase 
on the end result.

Just need to note to David that drm-misc-next should be merged to 
drm-next before the Intel patches depending on that stuff land as well.

Christian.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Thomas
>

Re: [Intel-gfx] Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:48:41AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 02.06.21 um 11:16 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
> > 
> > On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
> > > Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip to merge a large patch
> > > set for TTM through drm-misc-next.
> > > 
> > > I'm pretty sure we will run into merge conflicts if you try to push
> > > your changes through the Intel tree.
> > > 
> > > Christian.
> > 
> > OK, so what would be the best approach here?, Adding the TTM patches to
> > drm-misc-next when your set has landed?
> 
> I think I will send out out my set to Matthew once more for review, then
> push the common TTM stuff to drm-misc-next as much as possible.
> 
> Then you should be able to land your stuff to drm-misc-next and rebase on
> the end result.
> 
> Just need to note to David that drm-misc-next should be merged to drm-next
> before the Intel patches depending on that stuff land as well.

Other option (because the backmerges tend to be slow) is a topic branch,
and we just eat/resolve the conflicts in both drm-misc-next and
drm-intel-gt-next in the merge commit. If it's not too bad (I haven't
looked at what exactly we need for the i915 side from ttm in detail).

But also often figuring out the topic branch logistics takes longer than
just merging to drm-misc-next as the patches get ready.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: [Intel-gfx] Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Thomas Hellström]

On 6/2/21 8:40 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:48:41AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 02.06.21 um 11:16 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
>>> On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>> Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip to merge a large patch
>>>> set for TTM through drm-misc-next.
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure we will run into merge conflicts if you try to push
>>>> your changes through the Intel tree.
>>>>
>>>> Christian.
>>> OK, so what would be the best approach here?, Adding the TTM patches to
>>> drm-misc-next when your set has landed?
>> I think I will send out out my set to Matthew once more for review, then
>> push the common TTM stuff to drm-misc-next as much as possible.
>>
>> Then you should be able to land your stuff to drm-misc-next and rebase on
>> the end result.
>>
>> Just need to note to David that drm-misc-next should be merged to drm-next
>> before the Intel patches depending on that stuff land as well.
> Other option (because the backmerges tend to be slow) is a topic branch,
> and we just eat/resolve the conflicts in both drm-misc-next and
> drm-intel-gt-next in the merge commit. If it's not too bad (I haven't
> looked at what exactly we need for the i915 side from ttm in detail).
>
> But also often figuring out the topic branch logistics takes longer than
> just merging to drm-misc-next as the patches get ready.
> -Daniel

Daniel: So the thing we need to get into TTM is the iterator-based 
move_memcpy which is more adaptable than the current one and needed to 
support non-linear lmem buffers, some bug-fixes and minor changes to be 
able to keep our short-term-pinning while on the LRU. A necessary evil.

Christian: it looks like you have landed some TTM changes already, in 
particular the &bo->mem -> bo->resource change which is the main 
conflict I think. Is the 10 patches self-allocation series the main 
remaining part? That will probably cause some conflicts with already 
pushed i915 TTM setup code, but otherwise will not conflict with the 
rest of the TTM code I think, which should make it possible to bring in 
our TTM changes after conflict resolution with what you've already 
pushed. The memcpy code is pretty self-contained.

/Thomas

Re: [Intel-gfx] Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:50 AM Thomas Hellström
<thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/2/21 8:40 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:48:41AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> >> Am 02.06.21 um 11:16 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
> >>> On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
> >>>> Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip to merge a large patch
> >>>> set for TTM through drm-misc-next.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm pretty sure we will run into merge conflicts if you try to push
> >>>> your changes through the Intel tree.
> >>>>
> >>>> Christian.
> >>> OK, so what would be the best approach here?, Adding the TTM patches to
> >>> drm-misc-next when your set has landed?
> >> I think I will send out out my set to Matthew once more for review, then
> >> push the common TTM stuff to drm-misc-next as much as possible.
> >>
> >> Then you should be able to land your stuff to drm-misc-next and rebase on
> >> the end result.
> >>
> >> Just need to note to David that drm-misc-next should be merged to drm-next
> >> before the Intel patches depending on that stuff land as well.
> > Other option (because the backmerges tend to be slow) is a topic branch,
> > and we just eat/resolve the conflicts in both drm-misc-next and
> > drm-intel-gt-next in the merge commit. If it's not too bad (I haven't
> > looked at what exactly we need for the i915 side from ttm in detail).
> >
> > But also often figuring out the topic branch logistics takes longer than
> > just merging to drm-misc-next as the patches get ready.
> > -Daniel
>
> Daniel: So the thing we need to get into TTM is the iterator-based
> move_memcpy which is more adaptable than the current one and needed to
> support non-linear lmem buffers, some bug-fixes and minor changes to be
> able to keep our short-term-pinning while on the LRU. A necessary evil.
>
> Christian: it looks like you have landed some TTM changes already, in
> particular the &bo->mem -> bo->resource change which is the main
> conflict I think. Is the 10 patches self-allocation series the main
> remaining part? That will probably cause some conflicts with already
> pushed i915 TTM setup code, but otherwise will not conflict with the
> rest of the TTM code I think, which should make it possible to bring in
> our TTM changes after conflict resolution with what you've already
> pushed. The memcpy code is pretty self-contained.

I think in that case topic branch on top of drm-next (once the ttm
bits we conflict with are there) is probably best, and then pull that
into drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next. Merge window freeze is also
approach, so without topic branch we'd be stuck until like -rc2 when
drm-next reopens. I guess Maarten can do the topic branch logistics in
drm-misc.git for this.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: [Intel-gfx] Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Christian König]

Am 03.06.21 um 09:36 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:50 AM Thomas Hellström
> <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/2/21 8:40 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:48:41AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>>>> Am 02.06.21 um 11:16 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
>>>>> On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>> Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip to merge a large patch
>>>>>> set for TTM through drm-misc-next.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm pretty sure we will run into merge conflicts if you try to push
>>>>>> your changes through the Intel tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>> OK, so what would be the best approach here?, Adding the TTM patches to
>>>>> drm-misc-next when your set has landed?
>>>> I think I will send out out my set to Matthew once more for review, then
>>>> push the common TTM stuff to drm-misc-next as much as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Then you should be able to land your stuff to drm-misc-next and rebase on
>>>> the end result.
>>>>
>>>> Just need to note to David that drm-misc-next should be merged to drm-next
>>>> before the Intel patches depending on that stuff land as well.
>>> Other option (because the backmerges tend to be slow) is a topic branch,
>>> and we just eat/resolve the conflicts in both drm-misc-next and
>>> drm-intel-gt-next in the merge commit. If it's not too bad (I haven't
>>> looked at what exactly we need for the i915 side from ttm in detail).
>>>
>>> But also often figuring out the topic branch logistics takes longer than
>>> just merging to drm-misc-next as the patches get ready.
>>> -Daniel
>> Daniel: So the thing we need to get into TTM is the iterator-based
>> move_memcpy which is more adaptable than the current one and needed to
>> support non-linear lmem buffers, some bug-fixes and minor changes to be
>> able to keep our short-term-pinning while on the LRU. A necessary evil.
>>
>> Christian: it looks like you have landed some TTM changes already, in
>> particular the &bo->mem -> bo->resource change which is the main
>> conflict I think.

Yes, I thought that pushing this with Matthew rb should solve at least a 
bit of the conflict.

>> Is the 10 patches self-allocation series the main
>> remaining part?

Yes, exactly. I only need Matthew's, Daniel's or your ok and I'm good to 
go as well

>> That will probably cause some conflicts with already
>> pushed i915 TTM setup code, but otherwise will not conflict with the
>> rest of the TTM code I think, which should make it possible to bring in
>> our TTM changes after conflict resolution with what you've already
>> pushed. The memcpy code is pretty self-contained.
> I think in that case topic branch on top of drm-next (once the ttm
> bits we conflict with are there) is probably best, and then pull that
> into drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next. Merge window freeze is also
> approach, so without topic branch we'd be stuck until like -rc2 when
> drm-next reopens. I guess Maarten can do the topic branch logistics in
> drm-misc.git for this.

That approach sounds good to me as well.

The amdgpu branch had some merge conflicts as well, but nothing we 
couldn't fix.

Christian.

> -Daniel

Re: [Intel-gfx] Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Thomas Hellström]

On 6/4/21 9:51 AM, Christian König wrote:
> Am 03.06.21 um 09:36 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:50 AM Thomas Hellström
>> <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/2/21 8:40 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:48:41AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>>>>> Am 02.06.21 um 11:16 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
>>>>>> On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>>> Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip to merge a large 
>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>> set for TTM through drm-misc-next.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure we will run into merge conflicts if you try to push
>>>>>>> your changes through the Intel tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>> OK, so what would be the best approach here?, Adding the TTM 
>>>>>> patches to
>>>>>> drm-misc-next when your set has landed?
>>>>> I think I will send out out my set to Matthew once more for 
>>>>> review, then
>>>>> push the common TTM stuff to drm-misc-next as much as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you should be able to land your stuff to drm-misc-next and 
>>>>> rebase on
>>>>> the end result.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just need to note to David that drm-misc-next should be merged to 
>>>>> drm-next
>>>>> before the Intel patches depending on that stuff land as well.
>>>> Other option (because the backmerges tend to be slow) is a topic 
>>>> branch,
>>>> and we just eat/resolve the conflicts in both drm-misc-next and
>>>> drm-intel-gt-next in the merge commit. If it's not too bad (I haven't
>>>> looked at what exactly we need for the i915 side from ttm in detail).
>>>>
>>>> But also often figuring out the topic branch logistics takes longer 
>>>> than
>>>> just merging to drm-misc-next as the patches get ready.
>>>> -Daniel
>>> Daniel: So the thing we need to get into TTM is the iterator-based
>>> move_memcpy which is more adaptable than the current one and needed to
>>> support non-linear lmem buffers, some bug-fixes and minor changes to be
>>> able to keep our short-term-pinning while on the LRU. A necessary evil.
>>>
>>> Christian: it looks like you have landed some TTM changes already, in
>>> particular the &bo->mem -> bo->resource change which is the main
>>> conflict I think.
>
> Yes, I thought that pushing this with Matthew rb should solve at least 
> a bit of the conflict.
>
>>> Is the 10 patches self-allocation series the main
>>> remaining part?
>
> Yes, exactly. I only need Matthew's, Daniel's or your ok and I'm good 
> to go as well
>
>>> That will probably cause some conflicts with already
>>> pushed i915 TTM setup code, but otherwise will not conflict with the
>>> rest of the TTM code I think, which should make it possible to bring in
>>> our TTM changes after conflict resolution with what you've already
>>> pushed. The memcpy code is pretty self-contained.
>> I think in that case topic branch on top of drm-next (once the ttm
>> bits we conflict with are there) is probably best, and then pull that
>> into drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next. Merge window freeze is also
>> approach, so without topic branch we'd be stuck until like -rc2 when
>> drm-next reopens. I guess Maarten can do the topic branch logistics in
>> drm-misc.git for this.
>
> That approach sounds good to me as well.
>
> The amdgpu branch had some merge conflicts as well, but nothing we 
> couldn't fix.

OK, so this is going to be a little tricky, I guess.

 From what I can tell, the memcpy TTM stuff is resolved locally and can 
be merged to drm-misc-next immediately. It might have a very minor 
conflict with your 10 patches I think, if any.

Your 10 patches will conflict slightly with current drm-intel-gt-next I 
think.

Remaining intel patches will conflict only with current drm-misc-next.

So We could have pull order

- drm-misc-next up to bot not including your 10 patches,
- drm-intel-gt-next
- drm-misc-next from your 10 paches and onwards,
- Intel's ttm enablement topic branch.

Whether I push the ttm memcpy stuff before your 10 patches or after 
shouldn't really matter except it might take some time to resolve the 10 
patches - drm-intel-gt-next conflict in drm-tip.

So OK to merge the memcpy stuff to drm-misc-next now or do you want me 
to hold on?

I'll take a look at what's remaining to review in your series. I guess 
it's in our interest that both these series get merged asap.

/Thomas



>
> Christian.
>
>> -Daniel
>

Re: [Intel-gfx] Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:01:40AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> 
> On 6/4/21 9:51 AM, Christian König wrote:
> > Am 03.06.21 um 09:36 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:50 AM Thomas Hellström
> > > <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On 6/2/21 8:40 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:48:41AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > > > > Am 02.06.21 um 11:16 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
> > > > > > > On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
> > > > > > > > Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip to
> > > > > > > > merge a large patch
> > > > > > > > set for TTM through drm-misc-next.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I'm pretty sure we will run into merge conflicts if you try to push
> > > > > > > > your changes through the Intel tree.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Christian.
> > > > > > > OK, so what would be the best approach here?, Adding
> > > > > > > the TTM patches to
> > > > > > > drm-misc-next when your set has landed?
> > > > > > I think I will send out out my set to Matthew once more
> > > > > > for review, then
> > > > > > push the common TTM stuff to drm-misc-next as much as possible.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Then you should be able to land your stuff to
> > > > > > drm-misc-next and rebase on
> > > > > > the end result.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Just need to note to David that drm-misc-next should be
> > > > > > merged to drm-next
> > > > > > before the Intel patches depending on that stuff land as well.
> > > > > Other option (because the backmerges tend to be slow) is a
> > > > > topic branch,
> > > > > and we just eat/resolve the conflicts in both drm-misc-next and
> > > > > drm-intel-gt-next in the merge commit. If it's not too bad (I haven't
> > > > > looked at what exactly we need for the i915 side from ttm in detail).
> > > > > 
> > > > > But also often figuring out the topic branch logistics takes
> > > > > longer than
> > > > > just merging to drm-misc-next as the patches get ready.
> > > > > -Daniel
> > > > Daniel: So the thing we need to get into TTM is the iterator-based
> > > > move_memcpy which is more adaptable than the current one and needed to
> > > > support non-linear lmem buffers, some bug-fixes and minor changes to be
> > > > able to keep our short-term-pinning while on the LRU. A necessary evil.
> > > > 
> > > > Christian: it looks like you have landed some TTM changes already, in
> > > > particular the &bo->mem -> bo->resource change which is the main
> > > > conflict I think.
> > 
> > Yes, I thought that pushing this with Matthew rb should solve at least a
> > bit of the conflict.
> > 
> > > > Is the 10 patches self-allocation series the main
> > > > remaining part?
> > 
> > Yes, exactly. I only need Matthew's, Daniel's or your ok and I'm good to
> > go as well
> > 
> > > > That will probably cause some conflicts with already
> > > > pushed i915 TTM setup code, but otherwise will not conflict with the
> > > > rest of the TTM code I think, which should make it possible to bring in
> > > > our TTM changes after conflict resolution with what you've already
> > > > pushed. The memcpy code is pretty self-contained.
> > > I think in that case topic branch on top of drm-next (once the ttm
> > > bits we conflict with are there) is probably best, and then pull that
> > > into drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next. Merge window freeze is also
> > > approach, so without topic branch we'd be stuck until like -rc2 when
> > > drm-next reopens. I guess Maarten can do the topic branch logistics in
> > > drm-misc.git for this.
> > 
> > That approach sounds good to me as well.
> > 
> > The amdgpu branch had some merge conflicts as well, but nothing we
> > couldn't fix.
> 
> OK, so this is going to be a little tricky, I guess.
> 
> From what I can tell, the memcpy TTM stuff is resolved locally and can be
> merged to drm-misc-next immediately. It might have a very minor conflict
> with your 10 patches I think, if any.
> 
> Your 10 patches will conflict slightly with current drm-intel-gt-next I
> think.
> 
> Remaining intel patches will conflict only with current drm-misc-next.
> 
> So We could have pull order
> 
> - drm-misc-next up to bot not including your 10 patches,
> - drm-intel-gt-next
> - drm-misc-next from your 10 paches and onwards,
> - Intel's ttm enablement topic branch.

If it's just slight conflicts then I wouldn't bother with careful merge
order. Because if we do this we can get around to the i915 ttm topic
branch only when we're back to -rc2.

We can also validate any conflicts in drm-tip easily before they get baked
in in drm-next.

So I'd just go with
- drm-misc-next gets those 10 patches from Christian and the memcpy prep
  stuff from you, gets send to drm-next (that's probably the last feature
  pull for 5.14 anyway, maybe another one)
- drm-intel-gt-next gets send to drm-next
- topic branch with remaining i915 ttm work that's in flight on top of
  drm-next and we pull that into drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next as
  needed

Only thing we need for this is a few days of testing to make sure any
conflicts between -misc-next and -gt-next are fully validated.

Adding Dave for that so he knows too.

> Whether I push the ttm memcpy stuff before your 10 patches or after
> shouldn't really matter except it might take some time to resolve the 10
> patches - drm-intel-gt-next conflict in drm-tip.
> 
> So OK to merge the memcpy stuff to drm-misc-next now or do you want me to
> hold on?
> 
> I'll take a look at what's remaining to review in your series. I guess it's
> in our interest that both these series get merged asap.

Yeah that part I think makes sense.
-Daniel

> 
> /Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Christian.
> > 
> > > -Daniel
> > 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: [Intel-gfx] Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Christian König]

Am 04.06.21 um 11:12 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:01:40AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>> On 6/4/21 9:51 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 03.06.21 um 09:36 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:50 AM Thomas Hellström
>>>> <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/2/21 8:40 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:48:41AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 02.06.21 um 11:16 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
>>>>>>>> On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip to
>>>>>>>>> merge a large patch
>>>>>>>>> set for TTM through drm-misc-next.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure we will run into merge conflicts if you try to push
>>>>>>>>> your changes through the Intel tree.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>>> OK, so what would be the best approach here?, Adding
>>>>>>>> the TTM patches to
>>>>>>>> drm-misc-next when your set has landed?
>>>>>>> I think I will send out out my set to Matthew once more
>>>>>>> for review, then
>>>>>>> push the common TTM stuff to drm-misc-next as much as possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you should be able to land your stuff to
>>>>>>> drm-misc-next and rebase on
>>>>>>> the end result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just need to note to David that drm-misc-next should be
>>>>>>> merged to drm-next
>>>>>>> before the Intel patches depending on that stuff land as well.
>>>>>> Other option (because the backmerges tend to be slow) is a
>>>>>> topic branch,
>>>>>> and we just eat/resolve the conflicts in both drm-misc-next and
>>>>>> drm-intel-gt-next in the merge commit. If it's not too bad (I haven't
>>>>>> looked at what exactly we need for the i915 side from ttm in detail).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But also often figuring out the topic branch logistics takes
>>>>>> longer than
>>>>>> just merging to drm-misc-next as the patches get ready.
>>>>>> -Daniel
>>>>> Daniel: So the thing we need to get into TTM is the iterator-based
>>>>> move_memcpy which is more adaptable than the current one and needed to
>>>>> support non-linear lmem buffers, some bug-fixes and minor changes to be
>>>>> able to keep our short-term-pinning while on the LRU. A necessary evil.
>>>>>
>>>>> Christian: it looks like you have landed some TTM changes already, in
>>>>> particular the &bo->mem -> bo->resource change which is the main
>>>>> conflict I think.
>>> Yes, I thought that pushing this with Matthew rb should solve at least a
>>> bit of the conflict.
>>>
>>>>> Is the 10 patches self-allocation series the main
>>>>> remaining part?
>>> Yes, exactly. I only need Matthew's, Daniel's or your ok and I'm good to
>>> go as well
>>>
>>>>> That will probably cause some conflicts with already
>>>>> pushed i915 TTM setup code, but otherwise will not conflict with the
>>>>> rest of the TTM code I think, which should make it possible to bring in
>>>>> our TTM changes after conflict resolution with what you've already
>>>>> pushed. The memcpy code is pretty self-contained.
>>>> I think in that case topic branch on top of drm-next (once the ttm
>>>> bits we conflict with are there) is probably best, and then pull that
>>>> into drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next. Merge window freeze is also
>>>> approach, so without topic branch we'd be stuck until like -rc2 when
>>>> drm-next reopens. I guess Maarten can do the topic branch logistics in
>>>> drm-misc.git for this.
>>> That approach sounds good to me as well.
>>>
>>> The amdgpu branch had some merge conflicts as well, but nothing we
>>> couldn't fix.
>> OK, so this is going to be a little tricky, I guess.
>>
>>  From what I can tell, the memcpy TTM stuff is resolved locally and can be
>> merged to drm-misc-next immediately. It might have a very minor conflict
>> with your 10 patches I think, if any.
>>
>> Your 10 patches will conflict slightly with current drm-intel-gt-next I
>> think.
>>
>> Remaining intel patches will conflict only with current drm-misc-next.
>>
>> So We could have pull order
>>
>> - drm-misc-next up to bot not including your 10 patches,
>> - drm-intel-gt-next
>> - drm-misc-next from your 10 paches and onwards,
>> - Intel's ttm enablement topic branch.
> If it's just slight conflicts then I wouldn't bother with careful merge
> order. Because if we do this we can get around to the i915 ttm topic
> branch only when we're back to -rc2.

I've just pushed the remaining 10 patches to drm-misc-next and ran into 
minor merge conflicts in drm-tip.

I'm working on this, but I'm not very familiar with drm-tip handling.

Christian.

>
> We can also validate any conflicts in drm-tip easily before they get baked
> in in drm-next.
>
> So I'd just go with
> - drm-misc-next gets those 10 patches from Christian and the memcpy prep
>    stuff from you, gets send to drm-next (that's probably the last feature
>    pull for 5.14 anyway, maybe another one)
> - drm-intel-gt-next gets send to drm-next
> - topic branch with remaining i915 ttm work that's in flight on top of
>    drm-next and we pull that into drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next as
>    needed
>
> Only thing we need for this is a few days of testing to make sure any
> conflicts between -misc-next and -gt-next are fully validated.
>
> Adding Dave for that so he knows too.
>
>> Whether I push the ttm memcpy stuff before your 10 patches or after
>> shouldn't really matter except it might take some time to resolve the 10
>> patches - drm-intel-gt-next conflict in drm-tip.
>>
>> So OK to merge the memcpy stuff to drm-misc-next now or do you want me to
>> hold on?
>>
>> I'll take a look at what's remaining to review in your series. I guess it's
>> in our interest that both these series get merged asap.
> Yeah that part I think makes sense.
> -Daniel
>
>> /Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>>> -Daniel

Re: [Intel-gfx] Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Thomas Hellström]

On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 15:38 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 04.06.21 um 11:12 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:01:40AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > On 6/4/21 9:51 AM, Christian König wrote:
> > > > Am 03.06.21 um 09:36 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:50 AM Thomas Hellström
> > > > > <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 6/2/21 8:40 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:48:41AM +0200, Christian König
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Am 02.06.21 um 11:16 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
> > > > > > > > > On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip to
> > > > > > > > > > merge a large patch
> > > > > > > > > > set for TTM through drm-misc-next.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > I'm pretty sure we will run into merge conflicts if
> > > > > > > > > > you try to push
> > > > > > > > > > your changes through the Intel tree.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Christian.
> > > > > > > > > OK, so what would be the best approach here?, Adding
> > > > > > > > > the TTM patches to
> > > > > > > > > drm-misc-next when your set has landed?
> > > > > > > > I think I will send out out my set to Matthew once more
> > > > > > > > for review, then
> > > > > > > > push the common TTM stuff to drm-misc-next as much as
> > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Then you should be able to land your stuff to
> > > > > > > > drm-misc-next and rebase on
> > > > > > > > the end result.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Just need to note to David that drm-misc-next should be
> > > > > > > > merged to drm-next
> > > > > > > > before the Intel patches depending on that stuff land
> > > > > > > > as well.
> > > > > > > Other option (because the backmerges tend to be slow) is
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > topic branch,
> > > > > > > and we just eat/resolve the conflicts in both drm-misc-
> > > > > > > next and
> > > > > > > drm-intel-gt-next in the merge commit. If it's not too
> > > > > > > bad (I haven't
> > > > > > > looked at what exactly we need for the i915 side from ttm
> > > > > > > in detail).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > But also often figuring out the topic branch logistics
> > > > > > > takes
> > > > > > > longer than
> > > > > > > just merging to drm-misc-next as the patches get ready.
> > > > > > > -Daniel
> > > > > > Daniel: So the thing we need to get into TTM is the
> > > > > > iterator-based
> > > > > > move_memcpy which is more adaptable than the current one
> > > > > > and needed to
> > > > > > support non-linear lmem buffers, some bug-fixes and minor
> > > > > > changes to be
> > > > > > able to keep our short-term-pinning while on the LRU. A
> > > > > > necessary evil.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Christian: it looks like you have landed some TTM changes
> > > > > > already, in
> > > > > > particular the &bo->mem -> bo->resource change which is the
> > > > > > main
> > > > > > conflict I think.
> > > > Yes, I thought that pushing this with Matthew rb should solve
> > > > at least a
> > > > bit of the conflict.
> > > > 
> > > > > > Is the 10 patches self-allocation series the main
> > > > > > remaining part?
> > > > Yes, exactly. I only need Matthew's, Daniel's or your ok and
> > > > I'm good to
> > > > go as well
> > > > 
> > > > > > That will probably cause some conflicts with already
> > > > > > pushed i915 TTM setup code, but otherwise will not conflict
> > > > > > with the
> > > > > > rest of the TTM code I think, which should make it possible
> > > > > > to bring in
> > > > > > our TTM changes after conflict resolution with what you've
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > pushed. The memcpy code is pretty self-contained.
> > > > > I think in that case topic branch on top of drm-next (once
> > > > > the ttm
> > > > > bits we conflict with are there) is probably best, and then
> > > > > pull that
> > > > > into drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next. Merge window freeze
> > > > > is also
> > > > > approach, so without topic branch we'd be stuck until like -
> > > > > rc2 when
> > > > > drm-next reopens. I guess Maarten can do the topic branch
> > > > > logistics in
> > > > > drm-misc.git for this.
> > > > That approach sounds good to me as well.
> > > > 
> > > > The amdgpu branch had some merge conflicts as well, but nothing
> > > > we
> > > > couldn't fix.
> > > OK, so this is going to be a little tricky, I guess.
> > > 
> > >  From what I can tell, the memcpy TTM stuff is resolved locally
> > > and can be
> > > merged to drm-misc-next immediately. It might have a very minor
> > > conflict
> > > with your 10 patches I think, if any.
> > > 
> > > Your 10 patches will conflict slightly with current drm-intel-gt-
> > > next I
> > > think.
> > > 
> > > Remaining intel patches will conflict only with current drm-misc-
> > > next.
> > > 
> > > So We could have pull order
> > > 
> > > - drm-misc-next up to bot not including your 10 patches,
> > > - drm-intel-gt-next
> > > - drm-misc-next from your 10 paches and onwards,
> > > - Intel's ttm enablement topic branch.
> > If it's just slight conflicts then I wouldn't bother with careful
> > merge
> > order. Because if we do this we can get around to the i915 ttm
> > topic
> > branch only when we're back to -rc2.
> 
> I've just pushed the remaining 10 patches to drm-misc-next and ran
> into 
> minor merge conflicts in drm-tip.
> 
> I'm working on this, but I'm not very familiar with drm-tip handling.
> 
> Christian.

Np, I'll hold off until Monday.

/Thomas

Re: [Intel-gfx] Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Christian König]

Am 04.06.21 um 16:03 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 15:38 +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 04.06.21 um 11:12 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:01:40AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/21 9:51 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>>> Am 03.06.21 um 09:36 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:50 AM Thomas Hellström
>>>>>> <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/2/21 8:40 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:48:41AM +0200, Christian König
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am 02.06.21 um 11:16 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip to
>>>>>>>>>>> merge a large patch
>>>>>>>>>>> set for TTM through drm-misc-next.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure we will run into merge conflicts if
>>>>>>>>>>> you try to push
>>>>>>>>>>> your changes through the Intel tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>>>>> OK, so what would be the best approach here?, Adding
>>>>>>>>>> the TTM patches to
>>>>>>>>>> drm-misc-next when your set has landed?
>>>>>>>>> I think I will send out out my set to Matthew once more
>>>>>>>>> for review, then
>>>>>>>>> push the common TTM stuff to drm-misc-next as much as
>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you should be able to land your stuff to
>>>>>>>>> drm-misc-next and rebase on
>>>>>>>>> the end result.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just need to note to David that drm-misc-next should be
>>>>>>>>> merged to drm-next
>>>>>>>>> before the Intel patches depending on that stuff land
>>>>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>>> Other option (because the backmerges tend to be slow) is
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> topic branch,
>>>>>>>> and we just eat/resolve the conflicts in both drm-misc-
>>>>>>>> next and
>>>>>>>> drm-intel-gt-next in the merge commit. If it's not too
>>>>>>>> bad (I haven't
>>>>>>>> looked at what exactly we need for the i915 side from ttm
>>>>>>>> in detail).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But also often figuring out the topic branch logistics
>>>>>>>> takes
>>>>>>>> longer than
>>>>>>>> just merging to drm-misc-next as the patches get ready.
>>>>>>>> -Daniel
>>>>>>> Daniel: So the thing we need to get into TTM is the
>>>>>>> iterator-based
>>>>>>> move_memcpy which is more adaptable than the current one
>>>>>>> and needed to
>>>>>>> support non-linear lmem buffers, some bug-fixes and minor
>>>>>>> changes to be
>>>>>>> able to keep our short-term-pinning while on the LRU. A
>>>>>>> necessary evil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christian: it looks like you have landed some TTM changes
>>>>>>> already, in
>>>>>>> particular the &bo->mem -> bo->resource change which is the
>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>> conflict I think.
>>>>> Yes, I thought that pushing this with Matthew rb should solve
>>>>> at least a
>>>>> bit of the conflict.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is the 10 patches self-allocation series the main
>>>>>>> remaining part?
>>>>> Yes, exactly. I only need Matthew's, Daniel's or your ok and
>>>>> I'm good to
>>>>> go as well
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That will probably cause some conflicts with already
>>>>>>> pushed i915 TTM setup code, but otherwise will not conflict
>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>> rest of the TTM code I think, which should make it possible
>>>>>>> to bring in
>>>>>>> our TTM changes after conflict resolution with what you've
>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>> pushed. The memcpy code is pretty self-contained.
>>>>>> I think in that case topic branch on top of drm-next (once
>>>>>> the ttm
>>>>>> bits we conflict with are there) is probably best, and then
>>>>>> pull that
>>>>>> into drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next. Merge window freeze
>>>>>> is also
>>>>>> approach, so without topic branch we'd be stuck until like -
>>>>>> rc2 when
>>>>>> drm-next reopens. I guess Maarten can do the topic branch
>>>>>> logistics in
>>>>>> drm-misc.git for this.
>>>>> That approach sounds good to me as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> The amdgpu branch had some merge conflicts as well, but nothing
>>>>> we
>>>>> couldn't fix.
>>>> OK, so this is going to be a little tricky, I guess.
>>>>
>>>>   From what I can tell, the memcpy TTM stuff is resolved locally
>>>> and can be
>>>> merged to drm-misc-next immediately. It might have a very minor
>>>> conflict
>>>> with your 10 patches I think, if any.
>>>>
>>>> Your 10 patches will conflict slightly with current drm-intel-gt-
>>>> next I
>>>> think.
>>>>
>>>> Remaining intel patches will conflict only with current drm-misc-
>>>> next.
>>>>
>>>> So We could have pull order
>>>>
>>>> - drm-misc-next up to bot not including your 10 patches,
>>>> - drm-intel-gt-next
>>>> - drm-misc-next from your 10 paches and onwards,
>>>> - Intel's ttm enablement topic branch.
>>> If it's just slight conflicts then I wouldn't bother with careful
>>> merge
>>> order. Because if we do this we can get around to the i915 ttm
>>> topic
>>> branch only when we're back to -rc2.
>> I've just pushed the remaining 10 patches to drm-misc-next and ran
>> into
>> minor merge conflicts in drm-tip.
>>
>> I'm working on this, but I'm not very familiar with drm-tip handling.
>>
>> Christian.
> Np, I'll hold off until Monday.

Ok I've fixed up drm-tip for amdgpu, but there are also merge conflicts 
for i915.

Can you handle those? Doesn't looks to hard, but I would prefer not to 
touch code I can't test.

Christian.

>
> /Thomas
>
>

Re: [Intel-gfx] Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Thomas Hellström]

On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 16:06 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 04.06.21 um 16:03 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> > On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 15:38 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 04.06.21 um 11:12 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:01:40AM +0200, Thomas Hellström
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On 6/4/21 9:51 AM, Christian König wrote:
> > > > > > Am 03.06.21 um 09:36 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:50 AM Thomas Hellström
> > > > > > > <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 6/2/21 8:40 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:48:41AM +0200, Christian
> > > > > > > > > König
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Am 02.06.21 um 11:16 schrieb Thomas Hellström
> > > > > > > > > > (Intel):
> > > > > > > > > > > On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > merge a large patch
> > > > > > > > > > > > set for TTM through drm-misc-next.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm pretty sure we will run into merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > conflicts if
> > > > > > > > > > > > you try to push
> > > > > > > > > > > > your changes through the Intel tree.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Christian.
> > > > > > > > > > > OK, so what would be the best approach here?,
> > > > > > > > > > > Adding
> > > > > > > > > > > the TTM patches to
> > > > > > > > > > > drm-misc-next when your set has landed?
> > > > > > > > > > I think I will send out out my set to Matthew once
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > for review, then
> > > > > > > > > > push the common TTM stuff to drm-misc-next as much
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Then you should be able to land your stuff to
> > > > > > > > > > drm-misc-next and rebase on
> > > > > > > > > > the end result.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Just need to note to David that drm-misc-next
> > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > merged to drm-next
> > > > > > > > > > before the Intel patches depending on that stuff
> > > > > > > > > > land
> > > > > > > > > > as well.
> > > > > > > > > Other option (because the backmerges tend to be slow)
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > topic branch,
> > > > > > > > > and we just eat/resolve the conflicts in both drm-
> > > > > > > > > misc-
> > > > > > > > > next and
> > > > > > > > > drm-intel-gt-next in the merge commit. If it's not
> > > > > > > > > too
> > > > > > > > > bad (I haven't
> > > > > > > > > looked at what exactly we need for the i915 side from
> > > > > > > > > ttm
> > > > > > > > > in detail).
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > But also often figuring out the topic branch
> > > > > > > > > logistics
> > > > > > > > > takes
> > > > > > > > > longer than
> > > > > > > > > just merging to drm-misc-next as the patches get
> > > > > > > > > ready.
> > > > > > > > > -Daniel
> > > > > > > > Daniel: So the thing we need to get into TTM is the
> > > > > > > > iterator-based
> > > > > > > > move_memcpy which is more adaptable than the current
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > and needed to
> > > > > > > > support non-linear lmem buffers, some bug-fixes and
> > > > > > > > minor
> > > > > > > > changes to be
> > > > > > > > able to keep our short-term-pinning while on the LRU. A
> > > > > > > > necessary evil.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Christian: it looks like you have landed some TTM
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > already, in
> > > > > > > > particular the &bo->mem -> bo->resource change which is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > conflict I think.
> > > > > > Yes, I thought that pushing this with Matthew rb should
> > > > > > solve
> > > > > > at least a
> > > > > > bit of the conflict.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Is the 10 patches self-allocation series the main
> > > > > > > > remaining part?
> > > > > > Yes, exactly. I only need Matthew's, Daniel's or your ok
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > I'm good to
> > > > > > go as well
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > That will probably cause some conflicts with already
> > > > > > > > pushed i915 TTM setup code, but otherwise will not
> > > > > > > > conflict
> > > > > > > > with the
> > > > > > > > rest of the TTM code I think, which should make it
> > > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > to bring in
> > > > > > > > our TTM changes after conflict resolution with what
> > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > pushed. The memcpy code is pretty self-contained.
> > > > > > > I think in that case topic branch on top of drm-next
> > > > > > > (once
> > > > > > > the ttm
> > > > > > > bits we conflict with are there) is probably best, and
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > pull that
> > > > > > > into drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next. Merge window
> > > > > > > freeze
> > > > > > > is also
> > > > > > > approach, so without topic branch we'd be stuck until
> > > > > > > like -
> > > > > > > rc2 when
> > > > > > > drm-next reopens. I guess Maarten can do the topic branch
> > > > > > > logistics in
> > > > > > > drm-misc.git for this.
> > > > > > That approach sounds good to me as well.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The amdgpu branch had some merge conflicts as well, but
> > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > couldn't fix.
> > > > > OK, so this is going to be a little tricky, I guess.
> > > > > 
> > > > >   From what I can tell, the memcpy TTM stuff is resolved
> > > > > locally
> > > > > and can be
> > > > > merged to drm-misc-next immediately. It might have a very
> > > > > minor
> > > > > conflict
> > > > > with your 10 patches I think, if any.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your 10 patches will conflict slightly with current drm-
> > > > > intel-gt-
> > > > > next I
> > > > > think.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Remaining intel patches will conflict only with current drm-
> > > > > misc-
> > > > > next.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So We could have pull order
> > > > > 
> > > > > - drm-misc-next up to bot not including your 10 patches,
> > > > > - drm-intel-gt-next
> > > > > - drm-misc-next from your 10 paches and onwards,
> > > > > - Intel's ttm enablement topic branch.
> > > > If it's just slight conflicts then I wouldn't bother with
> > > > careful
> > > > merge
> > > > order. Because if we do this we can get around to the i915 ttm
> > > > topic
> > > > branch only when we're back to -rc2.
> > > I've just pushed the remaining 10 patches to drm-misc-next and
> > > ran
> > > into
> > > minor merge conflicts in drm-tip.
> > > 
> > > I'm working on this, but I'm not very familiar with drm-tip
> > > handling.
> > > 
> > > Christian.
> > Np, I'll hold off until Monday.
> 
> Ok I've fixed up drm-tip for amdgpu, but there are also merge
> conflicts 
> for i915.
> 
> Can you handle those? Doesn't looks to hard, but I would prefer not
> to 
> touch code I can't test.
> 
> Christian.

Hi, Christian,
Unfortunately I can't (not until monday at least as I'm off for the
weekend). But I did warn you twice about those.

/Thomas


> 
> > 
> > /Thomas
> > 
> > 
> 

Re: [Intel-gfx] Merging TTM branches through the Intel tree?

[Christian König]

Am 04.06.21 um 16:11 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 16:06 +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 04.06.21 um 16:03 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
>>> On Fri, 2021-06-04 at 15:38 +0200, Christian König wrote:
>>>> Am 04.06.21 um 11:12 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:01:40AM +0200, Thomas Hellström
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/4/21 9:51 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 03.06.21 um 09:36 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:50 AM Thomas Hellström
>>>>>>>> <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/21 8:40 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 11:48:41AM +0200, Christian
>>>>>>>>>> König
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 02.06.21 um 11:16 schrieb Thomas Hellström
>>>>>>>>>>> (Intel):
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/21 10:32 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uff I'm just waiting for feedback from Philip
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge a large patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set for TTM through drm-misc-next.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure we will run into merge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicts if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you try to push
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your changes through the Intel tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, so what would be the best approach here?,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Adding
>>>>>>>>>>>> the TTM patches to
>>>>>>>>>>>> drm-misc-next when your set has landed?
>>>>>>>>>>> I think I will send out out my set to Matthew once
>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>> for review, then
>>>>>>>>>>> push the common TTM stuff to drm-misc-next as much
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should be able to land your stuff to
>>>>>>>>>>> drm-misc-next and rebase on
>>>>>>>>>>> the end result.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just need to note to David that drm-misc-next
>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>> merged to drm-next
>>>>>>>>>>> before the Intel patches depending on that stuff
>>>>>>>>>>> land
>>>>>>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>>>>> Other option (because the backmerges tend to be slow)
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> topic branch,
>>>>>>>>>> and we just eat/resolve the conflicts in both drm-
>>>>>>>>>> misc-
>>>>>>>>>> next and
>>>>>>>>>> drm-intel-gt-next in the merge commit. If it's not
>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>> bad (I haven't
>>>>>>>>>> looked at what exactly we need for the i915 side from
>>>>>>>>>> ttm
>>>>>>>>>> in detail).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But also often figuring out the topic branch
>>>>>>>>>> logistics
>>>>>>>>>> takes
>>>>>>>>>> longer than
>>>>>>>>>> just merging to drm-misc-next as the patches get
>>>>>>>>>> ready.
>>>>>>>>>> -Daniel
>>>>>>>>> Daniel: So the thing we need to get into TTM is the
>>>>>>>>> iterator-based
>>>>>>>>> move_memcpy which is more adaptable than the current
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> and needed to
>>>>>>>>> support non-linear lmem buffers, some bug-fixes and
>>>>>>>>> minor
>>>>>>>>> changes to be
>>>>>>>>> able to keep our short-term-pinning while on the LRU. A
>>>>>>>>> necessary evil.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Christian: it looks like you have landed some TTM
>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>> already, in
>>>>>>>>> particular the &bo->mem -> bo->resource change which is
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>> conflict I think.
>>>>>>> Yes, I thought that pushing this with Matthew rb should
>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>> at least a
>>>>>>> bit of the conflict.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is the 10 patches self-allocation series the main
>>>>>>>>> remaining part?
>>>>>>> Yes, exactly. I only need Matthew's, Daniel's or your ok
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> I'm good to
>>>>>>> go as well
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That will probably cause some conflicts with already
>>>>>>>>> pushed i915 TTM setup code, but otherwise will not
>>>>>>>>> conflict
>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>> rest of the TTM code I think, which should make it
>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>> to bring in
>>>>>>>>> our TTM changes after conflict resolution with what
>>>>>>>>> you've
>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>> pushed. The memcpy code is pretty self-contained.
>>>>>>>> I think in that case topic branch on top of drm-next
>>>>>>>> (once
>>>>>>>> the ttm
>>>>>>>> bits we conflict with are there) is probably best, and
>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> pull that
>>>>>>>> into drm-misc-next and drm-intel-gt-next. Merge window
>>>>>>>> freeze
>>>>>>>> is also
>>>>>>>> approach, so without topic branch we'd be stuck until
>>>>>>>> like -
>>>>>>>> rc2 when
>>>>>>>> drm-next reopens. I guess Maarten can do the topic branch
>>>>>>>> logistics in
>>>>>>>> drm-misc.git for this.
>>>>>>> That approach sounds good to me as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The amdgpu branch had some merge conflicts as well, but
>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> couldn't fix.
>>>>>> OK, so this is going to be a little tricky, I guess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    From what I can tell, the memcpy TTM stuff is resolved
>>>>>> locally
>>>>>> and can be
>>>>>> merged to drm-misc-next immediately. It might have a very
>>>>>> minor
>>>>>> conflict
>>>>>> with your 10 patches I think, if any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your 10 patches will conflict slightly with current drm-
>>>>>> intel-gt-
>>>>>> next I
>>>>>> think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remaining intel patches will conflict only with current drm-
>>>>>> misc-
>>>>>> next.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So We could have pull order
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - drm-misc-next up to bot not including your 10 patches,
>>>>>> - drm-intel-gt-next
>>>>>> - drm-misc-next from your 10 paches and onwards,
>>>>>> - Intel's ttm enablement topic branch.
>>>>> If it's just slight conflicts then I wouldn't bother with
>>>>> careful
>>>>> merge
>>>>> order. Because if we do this we can get around to the i915 ttm
>>>>> topic
>>>>> branch only when we're back to -rc2.
>>>> I've just pushed the remaining 10 patches to drm-misc-next and
>>>> ran
>>>> into
>>>> minor merge conflicts in drm-tip.
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on this, but I'm not very familiar with drm-tip
>>>> handling.
>>>>
>>>> Christian.
>>> Np, I'll hold off until Monday.
>> Ok I've fixed up drm-tip for amdgpu, but there are also merge
>> conflicts
>> for i915.
>>
>> Can you handle those? Doesn't looks to hard, but I would prefer not
>> to
>> touch code I can't test.
>>
>> Christian.
> Hi, Christian,
> Unfortunately I can't (not until monday at least as I'm off for the
> weekend). But I did warn you twice about those.

Ok in this case I will just fix them up as best as I can.

Thanks,
Christian.

>
> /Thomas
>
>
>>> /Thomas
>>>
>>>
>