Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751489AbdCMIax (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 04:30:53 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:33471 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750852AbdCMIap (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Mar 2017 04:30:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:30:41 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Intel Graphics Development , Chris Wilson , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: annote drop_caches debugfs interface with lockdep Message-ID: <20170313083041.GH3343@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20170312192716.15172-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20170312205340.16202-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20170313080157.GF3343@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170313081517.7gpljiircaq7dkbl@phenom.ffwll.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170313081517.7gpljiircaq7dkbl@phenom.ffwll.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1406 Lines: 33 On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 09:15:17AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 09:01:57AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 09:53:40PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > Peter/Ingo, > > > > > > We want this to validate the i915 shrinker locking in our fast tests > > > without thrashing badly (that takes too long, we can only thrash in > > > the extended runs). Can you pls take a look and if it's ok ack for > > > merging through drm-intel.git? > > > > Hurm, I was going to rework all that soonish; have a look here: > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170302134031.GG6536@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net > > > > The immediate problem is that I made the annotation private to mm/ > > there, I suppose I could fix that. > > Yeah, we'd really like to have that, and even when switched to a > lockdep_map instead of reusing the context stuff the semantic interface > would be the same (and I think we should keep the gfp_flags stuff, in case > someone adds a nesting lockdep map for GFP_IO). > > Do you want a topic branch with just this patch (the shrink_all is new so > there will be a conflict and we can't mege it through one tree alone) so > that you can refactor things with i915 included? Just take your patch; I'll sort it out when I get time for things and take i915 along for the ride. Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Thanks!