Re: [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for series starting with [1/3] drm/i915/guc: Release GuC interrupts in i915_guc_submission_disable

2017-03-12 Thread Kamble, Sagar A
On 3/12/2017 6:29 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 04:17:34AM -, Patchwork wrote: == Series Details == Series: series starting with [1/3] drm/i915/guc: Release GuC interrupts in i915_guc_submission_disable URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/21090/ State :

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Rename REDIRECT_TO_GUC bit

2017-03-12 Thread Kamble, Sagar A
LGTM. Reviewed-by: Sagar Arun Kamble PS: Might need updating comments in the guc_interrupts_capture to align with new name and semantics of this bit w.r.t pm_intrmsk_mbz. On 3/12/2017 6:57 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: The REDIRECT_TO_GUC bit is a strange beast as it is a

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: make context status notifier head be per engine (rev3)

2017-03-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: make context status notifier head be per engine (rev3) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/20552/ State : failure == Summary == Series 20552v3 drm/i915: make context status notifier head be per engine

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: make context status notifier head be per engine

2017-03-12 Thread Zhenyu Wang
On 2017.03.13 10:47:11 +0800, changbin...@intel.com wrote: > From: Changbin Du > > GVTg has introduced the context status notifier to schedule the GVTg > workload. At that time, the notifier is bound to GVTg context only, > so GVTg is not aware of host workloads. > > Now

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: make context status notifier head be per engine

2017-03-12 Thread changbin . du
From: Changbin Du GVTg has introduced the context status notifier to schedule the GVTg workload. At that time, the notifier is bound to GVTg context only, so GVTg is not aware of host workloads. Now we are going to improve GVTg's guest workload scheduler policy, and add

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/scheduler: emulate a scheduler for guc

2017-03-12 Thread Dong, Chuanxiao
> -Original Message- > From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf > Of Tvrtko Ursulin > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:34 PM > To: Chris Wilson ; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2]

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: make context status notifier head be per engine

2017-03-12 Thread Du, Changbin
hi, chris, On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 05:17:17PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:27:24PM +0800, changbin...@intel.com wrote: > > From: Changbin Du > > > > GVTg has introduced the context status notifier to schedule the GVTg > > workload. At that time,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [libdrm PATCH] intel: Make unsynchronized GTT mappings work on systems with snooping.

2017-03-12 Thread Kenneth Graunke
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 6:21:12 AM PDT Chris Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 05:14:32PM -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote: > > On systems without LLC, drm_intel_gem_bo_map_unsynchronized() has > > had the surprising behavior of doing a synchronized GTT mapping. > > This is obviously not what

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-12 Thread Greg KH
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 09:46:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 08:44:40PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > Hi Daniel and Jani and other members of the i915-commit-cabal, > > > > I've mentioned this a few times to Daniel in the past (like at the last > > kernel summit), but the

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-12 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 06:11:12AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 13 March 2017 at 05:44, Greg KH wrote: > > Hi Daniel and Jani and other members of the i915-commit-cabal, > > > > I've mentioned this a few times to Daniel in the past (like at the last > > kernel

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for drm/i915: annote drop_caches debugfs interface with lockdep (rev2)

2017-03-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: annote drop_caches debugfs interface with lockdep (rev2) URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/21114/ State : warning == Summary == Series 21114v2 drm/i915: annote drop_caches debugfs interface with lockdep

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: annote drop_caches debugfs interface with lockdep

2017-03-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
The trouble we have is that we can't really test all the shrinker recursion stuff exhaustively in BAT because any kind of thrashing stress test just takes too long. But that leaves a really big gap open, since shrinker recursions are one of the most annoying bugs. Now lockdep already has support

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 08:44:40PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > Hi Daniel and Jani and other members of the i915-commit-cabal, > > I've mentioned this a few times to Daniel in the past (like at the last > kernel summit), but the way you all are handling the tagging of patches > for inclusion in stable

Re: [Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-12 Thread Dave Airlie
On 13 March 2017 at 05:44, Greg KH wrote: > Hi Daniel and Jani and other members of the i915-commit-cabal, > > I've mentioned this a few times to Daniel in the past (like at the last > kernel summit), but the way you all are handling the tagging of patches > for

[Intel-gfx] The i915 stable patch marking is totally broken

2017-03-12 Thread Greg KH
Hi Daniel and Jani and other members of the i915-commit-cabal, I've mentioned this a few times to Daniel in the past (like at the last kernel summit), but the way you all are handling the tagging of patches for inclusion in stable kernel releases is totally broken and causing me no end of

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: annote drop_caches debugfs interface with lockdep

2017-03-12 Thread Chris Wilson
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 08:27:16PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > The trouble we have is that we can't really test all the shrinker > recursion stuff exhaustively in BAT because any kind of thrashing > stress test just takes too long. > > But that leaves a really big gap open, since shrinker

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: annote drop_caches debugfs interface with lockdep

2017-03-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: annote drop_caches debugfs interface with lockdep URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/21114/ State : success == Summary == Series 21114v1 drm/i915: annote drop_caches debugfs interface with lockdep

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: annote drop_caches debugfs interface with lockdep

2017-03-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
The trouble we have is that we can't really test all the shrinker recursion stuff exhaustively in BAT because any kind of thrashing stress test just takes too long. But that leaves a really big gap open, since shrinker recursions are one of the most annoying bugs. Now lockdep already has support

Re: [Intel-gfx] [libdrm PATCH] intel: Make unsynchronized GTT mappings work on systems with snooping.

2017-03-12 Thread David Weinehall
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 01:21:12PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 05:14:32PM -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote: > > On systems without LLC, drm_intel_gem_bo_map_unsynchronized() has > > had the surprising behavior of doing a synchronized GTT mapping. > > This is obviously not what

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for drm/i915: Inline gen6_sanitize_rps_pm_mask()

2017-03-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: Inline gen6_sanitize_rps_pm_mask() URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/21107/ State : warning == Summary == Series 21107v1 drm/i915: Inline gen6_sanitize_rps_pm_mask() https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/21107/revisions/1/mbox/

[Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Rename REDIRECT_TO_GUC bit

2017-03-12 Thread Patchwork
== Series Details == Series: drm/i915: Rename REDIRECT_TO_GUC bit URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/21104/ State : success == Summary == Series 21104v1 drm/i915: Rename REDIRECT_TO_GUC bit https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/21104/revisions/1/mbox/ Test

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Inline gen6_sanitize_rps_pm_mask()

2017-03-12 Thread Chris Wilson
gen6_sanitize_rps_pm_mask() is small enough that inlining it shrinks the object code. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 5 - drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 8 +++- 2 files

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Rename REDIRECT_TO_GUC bit

2017-03-12 Thread Chris Wilson
The REDIRECT_TO_GUC bit is a strange beast as it is a disable bit - setting the bit in the pm interrupt generation stops the interrupt going to the guc (not sending it to the guc as the name implies). To help the reader rename it to DISABLE_REDIRECT_TO_GUC so that we keep the bspec greppable name

Re: [Intel-gfx] [libdrm PATCH] intel: Make unsynchronized GTT mappings work on systems with snooping.

2017-03-12 Thread Chris Wilson
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 05:14:32PM -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote: > On systems without LLC, drm_intel_gem_bo_map_unsynchronized() has > had the surprising behavior of doing a synchronized GTT mapping. > This is obviously not what the user of the API wanted. > > Eric left a comment indicating a

Re: [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for series starting with [1/3] drm/i915/guc: Release GuC interrupts in i915_guc_submission_disable

2017-03-12 Thread Chris Wilson
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 04:17:34AM -, Patchwork wrote: > == Series Details == > > Series: series starting with [1/3] drm/i915/guc: Release GuC interrupts in > i915_guc_submission_disable > URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/21090/ > State : success > > == Summary == > >

[Intel-gfx] [PULL] drm-misc-next

2017-03-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
Hi Dave, drm-misc-next-2017-03-12: More drm-misc stuff for 4.12: - drm_platform removal from Laurent - more dw-hdmi bridge driver updates (Laurent, Kieran, Neil) - more header cleanup and documentation - more drm_debugs_remove_files removal (Noralf) - minor qxl updates (Gerd) - edp crc support