From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756198AbcKKLWH (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:22:07 -0500 Received: from mail-it0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]:35811 "EHLO mail-it0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754403AbcKKLWF (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:22:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [2a02:168:56b5:0:ac27:b86c:7764:9429] In-Reply-To: <20161018125718.GG3157@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20161007145243.361481786@infradead.org> <20161007150210.927453282@infradead.org> <20161018124841.GW3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20161018125718.GG3157@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Daniel Vetter Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:22:02 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery 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 , Chris Wilson , Rob Clark Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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!! > > Hmm, I might have spoken too soon. My patch conflicted and I seem to > have read too much in the Changelog of 3b4e896f14b1 ("drm/i915: Remove > unused no-shrinker-steal"). Once all your locking rework is assembled it might be good to have a topic branch I could pull in. Both for testing and to handle conflicts before it goes boom in the merge window ;-) Not necessary ofc, but I think it'd be useful. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch