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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > 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) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
