On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 09:30:41AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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, queued in drm-intel for 4.12 with Chris' irc r-b confirmation. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
