Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:10:37 +0900
To:     Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i915: convert to new mount API
Message-ID: <20190802131037.GA466@tigerII.localdomain>
References: <20190802123956.2450-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
 <156475048333.6598.10268421599352645066@skylake-alporthouse-com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <156475048333.6598.10268421599352645066@skylake-alporthouse-com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (08/02/19 13:54), Chris Wilson wrote:
[..]
> >  int i915_gemfs_init(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> >  {
> > +       struct fs_context *fc = NULL;
> >         struct file_system_type *type;
> >         struct vfsmount *gemfs;
> > +       bool ok = true;
> 
> Start with ok = false, we only need to set to true if we succeed in
> reconfiguring.

OK, makes sense.

> >         type = get_fs_type("tmpfs");
> >         if (!type)
> > @@ -36,18 +39,29 @@ int i915_gemfs_init(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> >                 struct super_block *sb = gemfs->mnt_sb;
> >                 /* FIXME: Disabled until we get W/A for read BW issue. */
> >                 char options[] = "huge=never";
> > -               int flags = 0;
> > -               int err;
> 
> Hmm, we could avoid this if we used vfs_kernel_mount() directly rather
> than the kern_mount wrapper, as then we pass options through to
> parse_monotithic_mount_data(). Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Hmm.
Wouldn't this error on !TRANSPARENT_HUGE_PAGECACHE systems?
"huge=never" should be an invalid option when system does
not know about THP.

[..]
> > +               if (!fc->ops->parse_monolithic ||
> > +                               fc->ops->parse_monolithic(fc, options)) {
> 
> checkpatch.pl will complain that this should line up with the '('

It doesn't.

-------------------------------------------------
outgoing/0001-i915-convert-to-new-mount-API.patch
-------------------------------------------------
total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 53 lines checked

outgoing/0001-i915-convert-to-new-mount-API.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.

-------------------------------------------------------
outgoing/0002-i915-do-not-leak-module-ref-counter.patch
-------------------------------------------------------
total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 lines checked

outgoing/0002-i915-do-not-leak-module-ref-counter.patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.

[..]
> > +       if (!ok)
> > +               pr_err("i915 gemfs reconfiguration failed\n");
> 
> Let's make it a bit more user friendly,
> 
> dev_err(i915->drm.dev,
> 	"Unable to reconfigure internal shmemfs for preferred"
> 	" allocation strategy; continuing, but performance may suffer.\n");

I guess now checkpatch will complain :)

> Assuming that we can't just use vfs_kern_mount() instead, with the nits
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

Thanks.

I'll sit on it for several days, just to see if more feedback will come.

	-ss