1. 03 10月, 2017 2 次提交
    • I
      drm/nouveau/bsp/g92: disable by default · 194d68dd
      Ilia Mirkin 提交于
      G92's seem to require some additional bit of initialization before the
      BSP engine can work. It feels like clocks are not set up for the
      underlying VLD engine, which means that all commands submitted to the
      xtensa chip end up hanging. VP seems to work fine though.
      
      This still allows people to force-enable the bsp engine if they want to
      play around with it, but makes it harder for the card to hang by
      default.
      Signed-off-by: NIlia Mirkin <imirkin@alum.mit.edu>
      Signed-off-by: NBen Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
      Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
      194d68dd
    • B
      drm/nouveau/mmu: flush tlbs before deleting page tables · 77913bbc
      Ben Skeggs 提交于
      Even though we've zeroed the PDE, the GPU may have cached the PD, so we
      need to flush when deleting them.
      
      Noticed while working on replacement MMU code, but a backport might be a
      good idea, so let's fix it in the current code too.
      Signed-off-by: NBen Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
      Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
      77913bbc
  2. 27 9月, 2017 3 次提交
  3. 26 9月, 2017 1 次提交
  4. 25 9月, 2017 1 次提交
  5. 22 9月, 2017 1 次提交
  6. 21 9月, 2017 3 次提交
  7. 20 9月, 2017 1 次提交
  8. 19 9月, 2017 9 次提交
  9. 15 9月, 2017 2 次提交
  10. 14 9月, 2017 2 次提交
    • C
      dmi: Mark all struct dmi_system_id instances const · 6faadbbb
      Christoph Hellwig 提交于
      ... and __initconst if applicable.
      
      Based on similar work for an older kernel in the Grsecurity patch.
      
      [JD: fix toshiba-wmi build]
      [JD: add htcpen]
      [JD: move __initconst where checkscript wants it]
      Signed-off-by: NChristoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
      Signed-off-by: NJean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
      6faadbbb
    • M
      mm: treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag · 0ee931c4
      Michal Hocko 提交于
      GFP_TEMPORARY was introduced by commit e12ba74d ("Group short-lived
      and reclaimable kernel allocations") along with __GFP_RECLAIMABLE.  It's
      primary motivation was to allow users to tell that an allocation is
      short lived and so the allocator can try to place such allocations close
      together and prevent long term fragmentation.  As much as this sounds
      like a reasonable semantic it becomes much less clear when to use the
      highlevel GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag.  How long is temporary? Can the
      context holding that memory sleep? Can it take locks? It seems there is
      no good answer for those questions.
      
      The current implementation of GFP_TEMPORARY is basically GFP_KERNEL |
      __GFP_RECLAIMABLE which in itself is tricky because basically none of
      the existing caller provide a way to reclaim the allocated memory.  So
      this is rather misleading and hard to evaluate for any benefits.
      
      I have checked some random users and none of them has added the flag
      with a specific justification.  I suspect most of them just copied from
      other existing users and others just thought it might be a good idea to
      use without any measuring.  This suggests that GFP_TEMPORARY just
      motivates for cargo cult usage without any reasoning.
      
      I believe that our gfp flags are quite complex already and especially
      those with highlevel semantic should be clearly defined to prevent from
      confusion and abuse.  Therefore I propose dropping GFP_TEMPORARY and
      replace all existing users to simply use GFP_KERNEL.  Please note that
      SLAB users with shrinkers will still get __GFP_RECLAIMABLE heuristic and
      so they will be placed properly for memory fragmentation prevention.
      
      I can see reasons we might want some gfp flag to reflect shorterm
      allocations but I propose starting from a clear semantic definition and
      only then add users with proper justification.
      
      This was been brought up before LSF this year by Matthew [1] and it
      turned out that GFP_TEMPORARY really doesn't have a clear semantic.  It
      seems to be a heuristic without any measured advantage for most (if not
      all) its current users.  The follow up discussion has revealed that
      opinions on what might be temporary allocation differ a lot between
      developers.  So rather than trying to tweak existing users into a
      semantic which they haven't expected I propose to simply remove the flag
      and start from scratch if we really need a semantic for short term
      allocations.
      
      [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170118054945.GD18349@bombadil.infradead.org
      
      [akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix typo]
      [akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style fixes]
      [sfr@canb.auug.org.au: drm/i915: fix up]
        Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170816144703.378d4f4d@canb.auug.org.au
      Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170728091904.14627-1-mhocko@kernel.orgSigned-off-by: NMichal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
      Signed-off-by: NStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
      Acked-by: NMel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
      Acked-by: NVlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
      Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
      Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
      Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
      Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
      Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      0ee931c4
  11. 13 9月, 2017 3 次提交
  12. 12 9月, 2017 1 次提交
  13. 09 9月, 2017 1 次提交
  14. 08 9月, 2017 1 次提交
  15. 07 9月, 2017 3 次提交
  16. 06 9月, 2017 3 次提交
  17. 05 9月, 2017 1 次提交
  18. 02 9月, 2017 2 次提交