On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 11:43:38PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > On 2/16/23 15:15, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 03:02:10PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > >> On 1/27/23 11:13, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 01:55:09AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > >>>> Hello Thomas and Gerd, > >>>> > >>>> On 1/9/23 00:04, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > >>>>> This series: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Makes minor fixes for drm_gem_lru and Panfrost > >>>>> 2. Brings refactoring for older code > >>>>> 3. Adds common drm-shmem memory shrinker > >>>>> 4. Enables shrinker for VirtIO-GPU driver > >>>>> 5. Switches Panfrost driver to the common shrinker > >>>>> > >>>>> Changelog: > >>>>> > >>>>> v10:- Rebased on a recent linux-next. > >>>>> > >>>>> - Added Rob's ack to MSM "Prevent blocking within shrinker loop" patch. > >>>>> > >>>>> - Added Steven's ack/r-b/t-b for the Panfrost patches. > >>>>> > >>>>> - Fixed missing export of the new drm_gem_object_evict() function. > >>>>> > >>>>> - Added fixes tags to the first two patches that are making minor fixes, > >>>>> for consistency. > >>>> > >>>> Do you have comments on this version? Otherwise ack will be appreciated. > >>>> Thanks in advance! > >>> > >>> Don't feel like signing off on the locking changes, I'm not that > >>> familiar with the drm locking rules. So someone else looking at them > >>> would be good. Otherwise the series and specifically the virtio changes > >>> look good to me. > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Thomas was looking at the the DRM core changes. I expect he'll ack them. > >> > >> Thank you for reviewing the virtio patches! > > > > I think best-case would be an ack from msm people that this looks good > > (even better a conversion for msm to start using this). > > The MSM pretty much isn't touched by this patchset, apart from the minor > common shrinker fix. Moving whole MSM to use drm_shmem should be a big > change to the driver. > > The Panfrost and VirtIO-GPU drivers already got the acks. I also tested > the Lima driver, which uses drm-shmem helpers. Other DRM drivers should > be unaffected by this series. Ah that sounds good, I somehow thought that etnaviv also uses the helpers, but there we only had problems with dma-buf. So that's all sorted. > > Otherwise I think the locking looks reasonable, I think the tricky bits > > have been moving the dma-buf rules, but if you want I can try to take > > another in-depth look. But would need to be in 2 weeks since I'm going on > > vacations, pls ping me on irc if I'm needed. > > The locking conversion is mostly a straightforward replacement of mutex > with resv lock for drm-shmem. The dma-buf rules were tricky, another > tricky part was fixing the lockdep warning for the bogus report of > fs_reclaim vs GEM shrinker at the GEM destroy time where I borrowed the > drm_gem_shmem_resv_assert_held() solution from the MSM driver where Rob > had a similar issue. Ah I missed that detail, if msm solved that the same way then I think very high chances it all ends up being compatible. Which is really what matters, not so much whether every last driver actually has converted over. > > Otherwise would be great if we can land this soon, so that it can soak the > > entire linux-next cycle to catch any driver specific issues. > > That will be great. Was waiting for Thomas to ack the shmem patches > since he reviewed the previous versions, but if you or anyone else could > ack them, then will be good too. Thanks! I'm good for an ack, but maybe ping Thomas for a review on irc since I'm out next week. Also maybe Thomas has some series you can help land for cross review. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
