This patch adds support for numa topology on powernv platforms running
OPAL formware. It checks for the type of platform at run time and
sets the affinity form correctly so that NUMA topology can be discovered
correctly.
Signed-off-by: Dipankar Sarma
---
arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 24
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:20:06PM +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> * Dipankar Sarma [2010-03-06 00:48:11]:
>
> > Shouldn't we create this only for supported platforms ?
>
> Hi Dipankar,
>
> Yes we will need a check like
> firmware_has_feature(FW_FEA
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:48:22PM +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> static void __init cpu_init_thread_core_maps(int tpc)
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig
> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig
> index c667f0f..b3dd108 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 07:22:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 22:33 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra [2009-09-16 18:35:16]:
> >
> > > Now if you were to try and online the cpus in the guest, it'd fail
> > > because the cpus aren't backed anymore
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:32:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 20:58 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 02:11:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 17:36 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > > > This
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 02:11:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 17:36 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > This patchset contains the offline state driver implemented for
> > pSeries. For pSeries, we define three available_hotplug_states. They are:
> >
> > online: The
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 01:28:15PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 09:15:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 11:54 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > > For most parts, we do. The guest kernel doesn't manage the offline
> > &
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 09:15:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 11:54 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > For most parts, we do. The guest kernel doesn't manage the offline
> > CPU state. That is typically done by the hypervisor. However, offline
> >
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:53:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 01:14 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > Agreed, I've tried to come with a little ASCII art to depict your
> > scenairos graphically
> >
> >
> > ++ don't need (offline)
> > | OS+--
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 01:30:21PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > It depends on the hypervisor implementation. On pseries (powerpc)
> > hypervisor, for example, they are different. By offlining a vcpu
> > (and in turn shutting a cpu), you will actually create a configuration
> > change in the
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 08:45:18PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > In a native system, I think we should the platform-specific code
> > export what makes sense. That may be just the lowest possible
> > state only. Or may be more than
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 01:58:06PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > May be having (to pick a number) 3 possible offline states for all
> > platforms with one for halt equivalent and one for deepest possible that
> > CPU can handle and one for deepest possible that platform likes for
> > C-st
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 05:22:17PM -0700, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> Also, I don't think using just the ACPI/BIOS supplied states in _CST is
> right thing to do for offline. _CST is meant for C-state and BIOS may
> not include some C-state in _CST if the system manufacturer thinks that
> the lat
13 matches
Mail list logo
