From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753679AbcKHQJ0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:09:26 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:32922 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753217AbcKHQJW (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:09:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:09:16 +0100 From: Daniel Vetter To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Intel Graphics , DRI , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Wilson , Joonas Lahtinen , Rob Clark Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the drm-intel tree Message-ID: <20161108160916.56nxpkiupw3u7rgy@phenom.ffwll.local> Mail-Followup-To: Peter Zijlstra , Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Intel Graphics , DRI , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Wilson , Joonas Lahtinen , Rob Clark References: <20161108152541.096711bb@canb.auug.org.au> <20161108104403.mi3onjfn65etrrtu@phenom.ffwll.local> <20161108132448.GG3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161108132448.GG3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> X-Operating-System: Linux phenom 4.6.0-1-amd64 User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161014 (1.7.1) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:24:48PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:44:03AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:25:41PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > FIXME: Add owner of second tree to To: > > > Add author(s)/SOB of conflicting commits. > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c > > > > > > between commits: > > > > > > 1233e2db199d ("drm/i915: Move object backing storage manipulation to its own locking") > > > > > > from the drm-intel tree and commit: > > > > > > 3ab7c086d5ec ("locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery") > > > c7faee2109f9 ("locking/drm: Fix i915_gem_shrinker_lock() locking") > > > > Hm, this seems to be the older versions that nuke the recursive locking > > trickery entirely, I thought we had version in-flight that kept that? I > > know that the i915 (and msm locking fwiw) is horrible since essentially > > it's a recursive BKL, and we're working (slowly, after all getting rid of > > the BKL wasn't simple either) to fix this. But meanwhile I'm assuming that > > we'll still need this to be able to get out of low memory situations in > > i915. Has that part simply not yet landed? > > You're talking about: > > lkml.kernel.org/r/20161007154351.GL3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net > > ? I got no feedback from you DRM guys on that so I kinda forgot about > that in the hope we'd not have to do this at all. Yes. Chris/Joonas, pls give this is a spin and review. > > I can try and resurrect, that I suppose. > > Now, I know you're working on getting rid of this entirely for i915, but > what about that MSM driver? Will we continue to need it there, is > anybody actually maintaining that thing? Rob Clark is, and since he's a one-man gpu driver team with other responsibilities it might take even longer than for i915 :( -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch