Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the drm-intel tree

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:44:03AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:25:41PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > FIXME: Add owner of second tree to To:
> >        Add author(s)/SOB of conflicting commits.
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
> > 
> > between commits:
> > 
> >   1233e2db199d ("drm/i915: Move object backing storage manipulation to its own locking")
> > 
> > from the drm-intel tree and commit:
> > 
> >   3ab7c086d5ec ("locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery")
> >   c7faee2109f9 ("locking/drm: Fix i915_gem_shrinker_lock() locking")
> 
> Hm, this seems to be the older versions that nuke the recursive locking
> trickery entirely, I thought we had version in-flight that kept that? I
> know that the i915 (and msm locking fwiw) is horrible since essentially
> it's a recursive BKL, and we're working (slowly, after all getting rid of
> the BKL wasn't simple either) to fix this. But meanwhile I'm assuming that
> we'll still need this to be able to get out of low memory situations in
> i915. Has that part simply not yet landed?

You're talking about:

  lkml.kernel.org/r/20161007154351.GL3117@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

? I got no feedback from you DRM guys on that so I kinda forgot about
that in the hope we'd not have to do this at all.

I can try and resurrect, that I suppose.

Now, I know you're working on getting rid of this entirely for i915, but
what about that MSM driver? Will we continue to need it there, is
anybody actually maintaining that thing?