diff --git a/Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt b/Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8a112dc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,344 @@
+Wait/Wound Deadlock-Proof Mutex Design
+======================================
+
+Please read mutex-design.txt first, as it applies to wait/wound mutexes too.
+
+Motivation for WW-Mutexes
+-------------------------
+
+GPU's do operations that commonly involve many buffers.  Those buffers
+can be shared across contexts/processes, exist in different memory
+domains (for example VRAM vs system memory), and so on.  And with
+PRIME / dmabuf, they can even be shared across devices.  So there are
+a handful of situations where the driver needs to wait for buffers to
+become ready.  If you think about this in terms of waiting on a buffer
+mutex for it to become available, this presents a problem because
+there is no way to guarantee that buffers appear in a execbuf/batch in
+the same order in all contexts.  That is directly under control of
+userspace, and a result of the sequence of GL calls that an application
+makes.	Which results in the potential for deadlock.  The problem gets
+more complex when you consider that the kernel may need to migrate the
+buffer(s) into VRAM before the GPU operates on the buffer(s), which
+may in turn require evicting some other buffers (and you don't want to
+evict other buffers which are already queued up to the GPU), but for a
+simplified understanding of the problem you can ignore this.
+
+The algorithm that the TTM graphics subsystem came up with for dealing with
+this problem is quite simple.  For each group of buffers (execbuf) that need
+to be locked, the caller would be assigned a unique reservation id/ticket,
+from a global counter.  In case of deadlock while locking all the buffers
+associated with a execbuf, the one with the lowest reservation ticket (i.e.
+the oldest task) wins, and the one with the higher reservation id (i.e. the
+younger task) unlocks all of the buffers that it has already locked, and then
+tries again.
+
+In the RDBMS literature this deadlock handling approach is called wait/wound:
+The older tasks waits until it can acquire the contended lock. The younger tasks
+needs to back off and drop all the locks it is currently holding, i.e. the
+younger task is wounded.
+
+Concepts
+--------
+
+Compared to normal mutexes two additional concepts/objects show up in the lock
+interface for w/w mutexes:
+
+Acquire context: To ensure eventual forward progress it is important the a task
+trying to acquire locks doesn't grab a new reservation id, but keeps the one it
+acquired when starting the lock acquisition. This ticket is stored in the
+acquire context. Furthermore the acquire context keeps track of debugging state
+to catch w/w mutex interface abuse.
+
+W/w class: In contrast to normal mutexes the lock class needs to be explicit for
+w/w mutexes, since it is required to initialize the acquire context.
+
+Furthermore there are three different class of w/w lock acquire functions:
+
+* Normal lock acquisition with a context, using ww_mutex_lock.
+
+* Slowpath lock acquisition on the contending lock, used by the wounded task
+  after having dropped all already acquired locks. These functions have the
+  _slow postfix.
+
+  From a simple semantics point-of-view the _slow functions are not strictly
+  required, since simply calling the normal ww_mutex_lock functions on the
+  contending lock (after having dropped all other already acquired locks) will
+  work correctly. After all if no other ww mutex has been acquired yet there's
+  no deadlock potential and hence the ww_mutex_lock call will block and not
+  prematurely return -EDEADLK. The advantage of the _slow functions is in
+  interface safety:
+  - ww_mutex_lock has a __must_check int return type, whereas ww_mutex_lock_slow
+    has a void return type. Note that since ww mutex code needs loops/retries
+    anyway the __must_check doesn't result in spurious warnings, even though the
+    very first lock operation can never fail.
+  - When full debugging is enabled ww_mutex_lock_slow checks that all acquired
+    ww mutex have been released (preventing deadlocks) and makes sure that we
+    block on the contending lock (preventing spinning through the -EDEADLK
+    slowpath until the contended lock can be acquired).
+
+* Functions to only acquire a single w/w mutex, which results in the exact same
+  semantics as a normal mutex. This is done by calling ww_mutex_lock with a NULL
+  context.
+
+  Again this is not strictly required. But often you only want to acquire a
+  single lock in which case it's pointless to set up an acquire context (and so
+  better to avoid grabbing a deadlock avoidance ticket).
+
+Of course, all the usual variants for handling wake-ups due to signals are also
+provided.
+
+Usage
+-----
+
+Three different ways to acquire locks within the same w/w class. Common
+definitions for methods #1 and #2:
+
+static DEFINE_WW_CLASS(ww_class);
+
+struct obj {
+	struct ww_mutex lock;
+	/* obj data */
+};
+
+struct obj_entry {
+	struct list_head head;
+	struct obj *obj;
+};
+
+Method 1, using a list in execbuf->buffers that's not allowed to be reordered.
+This is useful if a list of required objects is already tracked somewhere.
+Furthermore the lock helper can use propagate the -EALREADY return code back to
+the caller as a signal that an object is twice on the list. This is useful if
+the list is constructed from userspace input and the ABI requires userspace to
+not have duplicate entries (e.g. for a gpu commandbuffer submission ioctl).
+
+int lock_objs(struct list_head *list, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
+{
+	struct obj *res_obj = NULL;
+	struct obj_entry *contended_entry = NULL;
+	struct obj_entry *entry;
+
+	ww_acquire_init(ctx, &ww_class);
+
+retry:
+	list_for_each_entry (entry, list, head) {
+		if (entry->obj == res_obj) {
+			res_obj = NULL;
+			continue;
+		}
+		ret = ww_mutex_lock(&entry->obj->lock, ctx);
+		if (ret < 0) {
+			contended_entry = entry;
+			goto err;
+		}
+	}
+
+	ww_acquire_done(ctx);
+	return 0;
+
+err:
+	list_for_each_entry_continue_reverse (entry, list, head)
+		ww_mutex_unlock(&entry->obj->lock);
+
+	if (res_obj)
+		ww_mutex_unlock(&res_obj->lock);
+
+	if (ret == -EDEADLK) {
+		/* we lost out in a seqno race, lock and retry.. */
+		ww_mutex_lock_slow(&contended_entry->obj->lock, ctx);
+		res_obj = contended_entry->obj;
+		goto retry;
+	}
+	ww_acquire_fini(ctx);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+Method 2, using a list in execbuf->buffers that can be reordered. Same semantics
+of duplicate entry detection using -EALREADY as method 1 above. But the
+list-reordering allows for a bit more idiomatic code.
+
+int lock_objs(struct list_head *list, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
+{
+	struct obj_entry *entry, *entry2;
+
+	ww_acquire_init(ctx, &ww_class);
+
+	list_for_each_entry (entry, list, head) {
+		ret = ww_mutex_lock(&entry->obj->lock, ctx);
+		if (ret < 0) {
+			entry2 = entry;
+
+			list_for_each_entry_continue_reverse (entry2, list, head)
+				ww_mutex_unlock(&entry2->obj->lock);
+
+			if (ret != -EDEADLK) {
+				ww_acquire_fini(ctx);
+				return ret;
+			}
+
+			/* we lost out in a seqno race, lock and retry.. */
+			ww_mutex_lock_slow(&entry->obj->lock, ctx);
+
+			/*
+			 * Move buf to head of the list, this will point
+			 * buf->next to the first unlocked entry,
+			 * restarting the for loop.
+			 */
+			list_del(&entry->head);
+			list_add(&entry->head, list);
+		}
+	}
+
+	ww_acquire_done(ctx);
+	return 0;
+}
+
+Unlocking works the same way for both methods #1 and #2:
+
+void unlock_objs(struct list_head *list, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
+{
+	struct obj_entry *entry;
+
+	list_for_each_entry (entry, list, head)
+		ww_mutex_unlock(&entry->obj->lock);
+
+	ww_acquire_fini(ctx);
+}
+
+Method 3 is useful if the list of objects is constructed ad-hoc and not upfront,
+e.g. when adjusting edges in a graph where each node has its own ww_mutex lock,
+and edges can only be changed when holding the locks of all involved nodes. w/w
+mutexes are a natural fit for such a case for two reasons:
+- They can handle lock-acquisition in any order which allows us to start walking
+  a graph from a starting point and then iteratively discovering new edges and
+  locking down the nodes those edges connect to.
+- Due to the -EALREADY return code signalling that a given objects is already
+  held there's no need for additional book-keeping to break cycles in the graph
+  or keep track off which looks are already held (when using more than one node
+  as a starting point).
+
+Note that this approach differs in two important ways from the above methods:
+- Since the list of objects is dynamically constructed (and might very well be
+  different when retrying due to hitting the -EDEADLK wound condition) there's
+  no need to keep any object on a persistent list when it's not locked. We can
+  therefore move the list_head into the object itself.
+- On the other hand the dynamic object list construction also means that the -EALREADY return
+  code can't be propagated.
+
+Note also that methods #1 and #2 and method #3 can be combined, e.g. to first lock a
+list of starting nodes (passed in from userspace) using one of the above
+methods. And then lock any additional objects affected by the operations using
+method #3 below. The backoff/retry procedure will be a bit more involved, since
+when the dynamic locking step hits -EDEADLK we also need to unlock all the
+objects acquired with the fixed list. But the w/w mutex debug checks will catch
+any interface misuse for these cases.
+
+Also, method 3 can't fail the lock acquisition step since it doesn't return
+-EALREADY. Of course this would be different when using the _interruptible
+variants, but that's outside of the scope of these examples here.
+
+struct obj {
+	struct ww_mutex ww_mutex;
+	struct list_head locked_list;
+};
+
+static DEFINE_WW_CLASS(ww_class);
+
+void __unlock_objs(struct list_head *list)
+{
+	struct obj *entry, *temp;
+
+	list_for_each_entry_safe (entry, temp, list, locked_list) {
+		/* need to do that before unlocking, since only the current lock holder is
+		allowed to use object */
+		list_del(&entry->locked_list);
+		ww_mutex_unlock(entry->ww_mutex)
+	}
+}
+
+void lock_objs(struct list_head *list, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
+{
+	struct obj *obj;
+
+	ww_acquire_init(ctx, &ww_class);
+
+retry:
+	/* re-init loop start state */
+	loop {
+		/* magic code which walks over a graph and decides which objects
+		 * to lock */
+
+		ret = ww_mutex_lock(obj->ww_mutex, ctx);
+		if (ret == -EALREADY) {
+			/* we have that one already, get to the next object */
+			continue;
+		}
+		if (ret == -EDEADLK) {
+			__unlock_objs(list);
+
+			ww_mutex_lock_slow(obj, ctx);
+			list_add(&entry->locked_list, list);
+			goto retry;
+		}
+
+		/* locked a new object, add it to the list */
+		list_add_tail(&entry->locked_list, list);
+	}
+
+	ww_acquire_done(ctx);
+	return 0;
+}
+
+void unlock_objs(struct list_head *list, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
+{
+	__unlock_objs(list);
+	ww_acquire_fini(ctx);
+}
+
+Method 4: Only lock one single objects. In that case deadlock detection and
+prevention is obviously overkill, since with grabbing just one lock you can't
+produce a deadlock within just one class. To simplify this case the w/w mutex
+api can be used with a NULL context.
+
+Implementation Details
+----------------------
+
+Design:
+  ww_mutex currently encapsulates a struct mutex, this means no extra overhead for
+  normal mutex locks, which are far more common. As such there is only a small
+  increase in code size if wait/wound mutexes are not used.
+
+  In general, not much contention is expected. The locks are typically used to
+  serialize access to resources for devices. The only way to make wakeups
+  smarter would be at the cost of adding a field to struct mutex_waiter. This
+  would add overhead to all cases where normal mutexes are used, and
+  ww_mutexes are generally less performance sensitive.
+
+Lockdep:
+  Special care has been taken to warn for as many cases of api abuse
+  as possible. Some common api abuses will be caught with
+  CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES, but CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING is recommended.
+
+  Some of the errors which will be warned about:
+   - Forgetting to call ww_acquire_fini or ww_acquire_init.
+   - Attempting to lock more mutexes after ww_acquire_done.
+   - Attempting to lock the wrong mutex after -EDEADLK and
+     unlocking all mutexes.
+   - Attempting to lock the right mutex after -EDEADLK,
+     before unlocking all mutexes.
+
+   - Calling ww_mutex_lock_slow before -EDEADLK was returned.
+
+   - Unlocking mutexes with the wrong unlock function.
+   - Calling one of the ww_acquire_* twice on the same context.
+   - Using a different ww_class for the mutex than for the ww_acquire_ctx.
+   - Normal lockdep errors that can result in deadlocks.
+
+  Some of the lockdep errors that can result in deadlocks:
+   - Calling ww_acquire_init to initialize a second ww_acquire_ctx before
+     having called ww_acquire_fini on the first.
+   - 'normal' deadlocks that can occur.
+
+FIXME: Update this section once we have the TASK_DEADLOCK task state flag magic
+implemented.