Re: [PATCH 1/1] drm/amdgpu: adopt to hmm_range_register API change

["Kuehling, Felix" <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>]

On 2019-07-03 10:10 a.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 01:55:08AM +0000, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
>> From: Philip Yang <Philip.Yang@amd.com>
>>
>> In order to pass mirror instead of mm to hmm_range_register, we need
>> pass bo instead of ttm to amdgpu_ttm_tt_get_user_pages because mirror
>> is part of amdgpu_mn structure, which is accessible from bo.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Philip Yang <Philip.Yang@amd.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>
>> CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
>> CC: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
>> CC: Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
>> CC: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig                          |  1 -
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c |  5 ++---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c           |  2 +-
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_gem.c          |  3 +--
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.c           |  8 ++++++++
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.h           |  5 +++++
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c          | 12 ++++++++++--
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.h          |  5 +++--
>>   8 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> This is too big to use as a conflict resolution, what you could do is
> apply the majority of the patch on top of your tree as-is (ie keep
> using the old hmm_range_register), then the conflict resolution for
> the updated AMD GPU tree can be a simple one line change:
>
>   -	hmm_range_register(range, mm, start,
>   +	hmm_range_register(range, mirror, start,
>    			   start + ttm->num_pages * PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SHIFT);
>
> Which is trivial for everone to deal with, and solves the problem.

Good idea.


>
> This is probably a much better option than rebasing the AMD gpu tree.

I think Alex is planning to merge hmm.git into an updated drm-next and 
then rebase amd-staging-drm-next on top of that. Rebasing our 
amd-staging-drm-next is something we do every month or two anyway.


>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.c
>> index 623f56a1485f..80e40898a507 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_mn.c
>> @@ -398,6 +398,14 @@ struct amdgpu_mn *amdgpu_mn_get(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>   	return ERR_PTR(r);
>>   }
>>   
>> +struct hmm_mirror *amdgpu_mn_get_mirror(struct amdgpu_mn *amn)
>> +{
>> +	if (!amn)
>> +		return NULL;
>> +
>> +	return &amn->mirror;
>> +}
> I think it is better make the struct amdgpu_mn public rather than add
> this wrapper.

Sure. I can do that. It won't make the patch smaller, though, if that 
was your intention.

It looks like Stephen already applied my patch as a conflict resolution 
on linux-next, though. I see linux-next/master is getting updated 
non-fast-forward. So is the idea that its history will updated again 
with the final resolution on drm-next or drm-fixes?

Regards,
   Felix

>
> Jason
>