On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, Andi Shyti <andi.sh...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Nirmoy,
>
> you forgot the v2 here.
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 03:49:38PM +0200, Nirmoy Das wrote:
>> From: Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cav...@intel.com>
>>
>> Where applicable, use for_each_gt instead of to_gt in the
>> i915_gem_shrinker functions to make them apply to more than just the
>> primary GT. Specifically, this ensure i915_gem_shrink_all retires all
>> requests across all GTs, and this makes i915_gem_shrinker_vmap unmap
>> VMAs from all GTs.
>>
>> v2: Pass correct GT to intel_gt_retire_requests(Andrzej).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cav...@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy....@intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.ha...@intel.com>
>
> [...]
>
>> - if (shrink & I915_SHRINK_ACTIVE)
>> - /* Retire requests to unpin all idle contexts */
>> - intel_gt_retire_requests(to_gt(i915));
>> + if (shrink & I915_SHRINK_ACTIVE) {
>> + for_each_gt(gt, i915, i)
>> + /* Retire requests to unpin all idle contexts */
>> + intel_gt_retire_requests(gt);
>> + }
>
> These two brackets are not needed.
>
>>
>> /*
>> * As we may completely rewrite the (un)bound list whilst unbinding
>> @@ -389,6 +393,8 @@ i915_gem_shrinker_vmap(struct notifier_block *nb,
>> unsigned long event, void *ptr
>> struct i915_vma *vma, *next;
>> unsigned long freed_pages = 0;
>> intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
>> + struct intel_gt *gt;
>> + int i;
>
> the trend is to use 'unsigned int' here and I've seen it
> reviewed. Personally, if I really have to express a preference, I
> prefer 'int' because it's a bit safer, generally I don't really
> mind :)
Always use int over unsigned int if you don't have a specific reason not
to. ("It can't be negative" is not a good reason.)
BR,
Jani.
>
> The rest looks good.
>
> Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.sh...@linux.intel.com>
>
> Andi
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
