linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the drm-intel tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:09:16 +0100
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the
 drm-intel tree

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@...ns.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