Hi, On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:37:41AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > Excerpts from Pratik Sampat's message of July 21, 2020 8:29 pm: > > > > > > On 20/07/20 5:27 am, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > >> Excerpts from Pratik Rajesh Sampat's message of July 18, 2020 4:53 am: > >>> Replace the variable name from using "pnv_first_spr_loss_level" to > >>> "pnv_first_fullstate_loss_level". > >>> > >>> As pnv_first_spr_loss_level is supposed to be the earliest state that > >>> has OPAL_PM_LOSE_FULL_CONTEXT set, however as shallow states too loose > >>> SPR values, render an incorrect terminology. > >> It also doesn't lose "full" state at this loss level though. From the > >> architecture it could be called "hv state loss level", but in POWER10 > >> even that is not strictly true. > >> > > Right. Just discovered that deep stop states won't loose full state > > P10 onwards. > > Would it better if we rename it as "pnv_all_spr_loss_state" instead > > so that it stays generic enough while being semantically coherent? > > It doesn't lose all SPRs. It does physically, but for Linux it appears > at least timebase SPRs are retained and that's mostly how it's > documented. > > Maybe there's no really good name for it, but we do call it "deep" stop > in other places, you could call it deep_spr_loss maybe. I don't mind too > much though, whatever Gautham is happy with.
Nick's suggestion is fine by me. We can call it deep_spr_loss_state. > > Thanks, > Nick -- Thanks and Regards gautham.
