On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 05:38:16PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 06:29:29 AM, Zhao Chenhui wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 07:04:06PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> On 04/19/2013 05:47:45 AM, Zhao Chenhui wrote:
> >> >From: Chen-Hui Zhao <chenhui.z...@freescale.com>
> >> >
> >> >For e6500, two threads in one core share one time base. Just need
> >> >to do time base sync on first thread of one core, and skip it on
> >> >the other thread.
> >> >
> >> >Signed-off-by: Zhao Chenhui <chenhui.z...@freescale.com>
> >> >Signed-off-by: Li Yang <le...@freescale.com>
> >> >Signed-off-by: Andy Fleming <aflem...@freescale.com>
> >> >---
> >> > arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/smp.c | 52
> >> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >> > 1 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> >diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/smp.c
> >> >b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/smp.c
> >> >index 74d8cde..5f3eee3 100644
> >> >--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/smp.c
> >> >+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/smp.c
> >> >@@ -53,26 +55,40 @@ static inline u32 get_phy_cpu_mask(void)
> >> > u32 mask;
> >> > int cpu;
> >> >
> >> >- mask = 1 << cur_booting_core;
> >> >- for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> >> >- mask |= 1 << get_hard_smp_processor_id(cpu);
> >> >+ if (smt_capable()) {
> >> >+ /* two threads in one core share one time base */
> >> >+ mask = 1 << cpu_core_index_of_thread(cur_booting_core);
> >> >+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> >> >+ mask |= 1 << cpu_core_index_of_thread(
> >> >+ get_hard_smp_processor_id(cpu));
> >> >+ } else {
> >> >+ mask = 1 << cur_booting_core;
> >> >+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> >> >+ mask |= 1 << get_hard_smp_processor_id(cpu);
> >> >+ }
> >>
> >> Where is smt_capable defined()? I assume somewhere in the patchset
> >> but it's a pain to search 12 patches...
> >>
> >
> >It is defined in arch/powerpc/include/asm/topology.h.
> > #define smt_capable() (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_SMT))
> >
> >Thanks for your review again.
>
> We shouldn't base it on CPU_FTR_SMT. For example, e6500 doesn't
> claim that feature yet, except in our SDK kernel. That doesn't
> change the topology of CPU numbering.
>
Then, where can I get the thread information? dts?
Or, wait for upstream of the thread suppport of e6500.
> >> Is this really about whether we're SMT-capable or whether we have
> >> rcpm v2?
> >>
> >> -Scott
> >
> >I think this "if" statement can be removed. The
> >cpu_core_index_of_thread()
> >can return the correct cpu number with thread or without thread.
> >
> >Like this:
> >static inline u32 get_phy_cpu_mask(void)
> >{
> > u32 mask;
> > int cpu;
> >
> > mask = 1 << cpu_core_index_of_thread(cur_booting_core);
> > for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> > mask |= 1 << cpu_core_index_of_thread(
> > get_hard_smp_processor_id(cpu));
> >
> > return mask;
> >}
>
> Likewise, this will get it wrong if SMT is disabled or not yet
> implemented on a core.
>
> -Scott
Let's look into cpu_core_index_of_thread() in arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c.
int cpu_core_index_of_thread(int cpu)
{
return cpu >> threads_shift;
}
If no thread, the threads_shift is equal to 0. It can work with no
thread.
Perhaps, I should submit this patch after the thread patches for e6500.
-Chenhui
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
