From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760398AbcJRM62 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:58:28 -0400 Received: from mail.fireflyinternet.com ([109.228.58.192]:54294 "EHLO fireflyinternet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755097AbcJRM6L (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:58:11 -0400 X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=78.156.65.138; Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:57:31 +0100 From: Chris Wilson To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Linus Torvalds , Waiman Long , Jason Low , Ding Tianhong , Thomas Gleixner , Will Deacon , Ingo Molnar , Imre Deak , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Davidlohr Bueso , Tim Chen , Terry Rudd , "Paul E. McKenney" , Jason Low , Daniel Vetter , Rob Clark Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery Message-ID: <20161018125731.GB29358@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com> References: <20161007145243.361481786@infradead.org> <20161007150210.927453282@infradead.org> <20161018124841.GW3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161018124841.GW3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 02:48:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 04:52:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Poking at lock internals is not cool. Since I'm going to change the > > implementation this will break, take it out. > > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter > > Cc: Chris Wilson > > Cc: Rob Clark > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c | 26 +++----------------------- > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c | 23 +++-------------------- > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > OK, so it appears that i915 changed their locking around and got rid of > this thing entirely. Much appreciated Chris!! It's not dead yet! Sorry. It's close though, in the next cycle we may be at a point where we don't rely on recursion locking in the shrinker. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre