On Fri, 9 Oct 2020, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny
>
> The kmap() calls in this FS are localized to a single thread. To avoid
> the over head of global PKRS updates use the new kmap_thread() call.
>
> Cc: Nicolas Pitre
> Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny
Ac
at this gets rid of a rather dodgy redefine
> of linux/export.h's header guard.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel
Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
> ---
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c | 5 +
> drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile | 3 ++-
> include/linux/export.
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> To allow existing C code to be incorporated into the decompressor or
> the UEFI stub, introduce a CPP macro that turns all EXPORT_SYMBOL_xxx
> declarations into nops, and #define it in places where such exports
> are undesirable. Note that this gets rid
On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 01:33:45 -0400 (EDT)
> Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 Aug 2016, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> >
> > > Introduce LINKER_DCE option for architectures to select if they want
> > > to build wi
as a better bet after all.
But LTO has its evils too and I'm willing to look at gc-sections again
if there is interest from others as well.
Nicolas
gc_slides.html.gz
Description: application/gzip
commit 1d7ec46257dc546bc7b87439788514fc4650a2b1
Author: Nicolas Pitre
Date: Mon Oct 26 10:16:14 2
On Sun, 7 Aug 2016, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 22:10:45 +0200 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >
> > Did you by any chance evalue the use of INPUT in linker files.
> > Stephen back then (again based on proposal from Alan Modra),
> > also made an implementation using INPUT.
>
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-07-01 at 10:06 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > On 06/30/2016 05:37 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > >
>
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 06/30/2016 05:37 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > > > + if (likely(nsec < DIV_APPROXIMATION_THRESHOLD)) {
> > > > + u32 usec =
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 06/30/2016 04:34 PM, Shreyas B. Prabhu wrote:
> > Snooze is a poll idle state in powernv and pseries platforms. Snooze
> > has a timeout so that if a cpu stays in snooze for more than target
> > residency of the next available idle state, then it wou
IMATION_THRESHOLD
> + * Approximated value has less than 1% error.
> + */
> +static inline int convert_nsec_to_usec(u64 nsec)
> +{
> + if (likely(nsec < DIV_APPROXIMATION_THRESHOLD)) {
To be coherent with the comment, you could use <= instead.
Then you may add:
Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre
Nicolas
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> > On 06/29/2016 09:06 AM, Shreyas B. Prabhu wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.h b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.h
> > > index f87f399..c8ea5ad 100644
> &g
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 06/29/2016 09:06 AM, Shreyas B. Prabhu wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.h b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.h
> > index f87f399..c8ea5ad 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.h
> > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.h
> > @@ -68,4 +68,27 @@ stat
://linuxppc.10917.n7.nabble.com/offlining-cpus-breakage-td88619.html
> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner
> Signed-off-by: Preeti U. Murthy
> [Changelog drawn from: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/16/213]
The lock-up I was experiencing with v1 of this patch is no longer
reproducible with this o
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:09:59PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > Did you merge those patches in your tree?
>
> tree, tree, what's in a word.
Something you may plant on a patch of grass? "M
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> On 02/07/2014 06:47 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> > What about creating arch_cpu_idle_enter() and arch_cpu_idle_exit() in
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/idle.c and calling ppc64_runlatch_off() and
> > ppc6
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 02/06/2014 09:55 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > Hi Nico,
> >
> >
> > On 6 February 2014 14:16, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> >> The core idle loop now takes care of it.
> >&g
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> powernv in the subject of the patch?
Crap. You're right.
That's what you get when posting patches while attending a meeting.
>
> Regards
> Preeti U Murthy
> On 02/06/2014 07:46 PM, Nicolas Pitre wr
The core idle loop now takes care of it.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/setup.c | 13 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/setup.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/setup.c
index 21166f65c9
The core idle loop now takes care of it.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
---
arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 7 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
index 1c0a9be2ff..9cce0098f4 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:03:31AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > This is not a valid patch for PATCH(1). Please try again.
> >
> > Don't you use git? ;-)
>
> Nah, git and me don't get along well.
>
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 01/30/2014 05:07 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > But what I don't get with your comment is the local_irq_enable is done
> > > from
> > > the cpuidle common fra
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 01/30/2014 06:28 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Nicolas,
> > >
> > > On 01/30/2014 02:01 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 29 Jan 20
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:45:13PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Integration of cpuidle with the scheduler requires that the idle loop be
> > closely integrated with the scheduler proper. Moving cpu/idle.c into the
> > sched dir
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:45:07PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > As everyone should know by now, we want to integrate the cpuidle
> > governor with the scheduler for a more efficient idling of CPUs.
> > In order to help the t
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> On 01/30/2014 02:01 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> >> In order to integrate cpuidle with the scheduler, we must have a better
> >> proximity in t
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> In order to integrate cpuidle with the scheduler, we must have a better
> proximity in the core code with what cpuidle is doing and not delegate
> such interaction to arch code.
>
> Architectures implementing arch_cpu_idle() should s
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Nicolas Pitre
> wrote:
> > The core idle loop now takes care of it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
> > Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano
> > ---
> > arch/x86/k
Integration of cpuidle with the scheduler requires that the idle loop be
closely integrated with the scheduler proper. Moving cpu/idle.c into the
sched directory will allow for a smoother integration, and eliminate a
subdirectory which contained only one source file.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
The core idle loop now takes care of it.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/sh/kernel/idle.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/sh/kernel/idle.c b/arch/sh/kernel/idle.c
index 2ea4483fd7..be616ee0cf 100644
--- a/arch/sh/kernel
tails might find some room for possible
optimizations.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
Reviewed-by: Preeti U Murthy
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/processor_idle.c | 5
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/setup.c | 34 ++---
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+
The core idle loop now takes care of it.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 5 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
index 3fb8d95ab8..4505e2a950 100644
--- a
The core idle loop now takes care of it.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
arch/arm/kernel/process.c | 16 +---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
index 92f7b15dd2..adabeababe
.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano
---
kernel/cpu/idle.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cpu/idle.c b/kernel/cpu/idle.c
index 988573a9a3..ffcd3ee9af 100644
--- a/kernel/cpu/idle.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu/idle.c
@@ -3,6 +3,7
As everyone should know by now, we want to integrate the cpuidle
governor with the scheduler for a more efficient idling of CPUs.
In order to help the transition, this small patch series moves the
existing interaction with cpuidle from architecture code to generic
core code. The ARM, PPC, SH and X
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:45:59AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 01:08:16AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > >
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:08:17AM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > ARM and ARM64 are the only two architectures implementing
> > arch_cpu_idle_prepare() simply to call local_fiq_enable().
> >
> > We have secondary_sta
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 01:08:16AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > ARM and ARM64 are the only two architectures implementing
> > arch_cpu_idle_prepare() simply to call local_fiq_enable().
> >
> > We have secon
Integration of cpuidle with the scheduler requires that the idle loop be
closely integrated with the scheduler proper. Moving cpu/idle.c into the
sched directory will allow for a smoother integration, and eliminate a
subdirectory which contained only one source file.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
The core idle loop now takes care of it.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
---
arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 5 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
index 3fb8d95ab8..4505e2a950 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
tails might find some room for possible
optimizations.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/processor_idle.c | 5
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/setup.c | 34 ++---
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a
The core idle loop now takes care of it.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
---
arch/sh/kernel/idle.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/sh/kernel/idle.c b/arch/sh/kernel/idle.c
index 2ea4483fd7..be616ee0cf 100644
--- a/arch/sh/kernel/idle.c
+++ b/arch/sh
The core idle loop now takes care of it.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
---
arch/arm/kernel/process.c | 16 +---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
index 725b8c95e0..34a59b7614 100644
--- a/arch/arm
.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
---
kernel/cpu/idle.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cpu/idle.c b/kernel/cpu/idle.c
index 4e327e211b..a6f40ad9f8 100644
--- a/kernel/cpu/idle.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu/idle.c
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
*/
#include
#include
+#include
d on ARM64.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
---
arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 5 -
arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 7 +++
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
index de17c89985..f6c733da67 100644
--- a/arch/ar
... so we can get rid of it entirely.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
---
include/linux/cpu.h | 1 -
kernel/cpu/idle.c | 2 --
2 files changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h
index 03e235ad1b..218fab7521 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpu.h
+++ b/include/linux
ned-off-by: Nicolas Pitre
---
arch/arm/kernel/process.c | 5 -
arch/arm/kernel/setup.c | 7 +++
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
index 92f7b15dd2..725b8c95e0 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/
As everyone should know by now, we want to integrate the cpuidle
governor with the scheduler for a more efficient idling of CPUs.
In order to help the transition, this small patch series moves the
existing interaction with cpuidle from architecture code to generic
core code. No functional change s
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 1. clk_get() and clk_put() are NOT part of the common clock API.
>They're separate - they're part of the clk API, and the infrastructure
>behind that is clkdev, which is a separately owned thing (by me.)
>
> 2. The "contract" of the c
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 09/12/2012 11:05 AM, Cyril Chemparathy wrote:
> > On some PAE architectures, the entire range of physical memory could reside
> > outside the 32-bit limit. These systems need the ability to specify the
> > initrd location using 64-bit numbers.
> >
> >
example).
>
> Cc: Tony Lindgren
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann
> Cc: Nicolas Pitre
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman
> Cc: Mike Frysinger
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker
Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
This doesn't support both ARMv6 and ARMv7 at run time, but this can
tri
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 19:46 +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >> >
> >> > DOH.
&
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 02:19:31PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > For example, if I want CONFIG_MTD_CMDLINE_PARTS=y, the system may be
> > smart enough to notice and automatically enable CONFIG_MTD and
> > CONFIG_M
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > For example, if I want CONFIG_MTD_CMDLINE_PARTS=y, the system may be
> > smart enough to notice and automatically enable CONFIG_MTD and
> > CONFIG_MTD_PARTITIONS without hav
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 00:04 +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> - It still doesn't resolve dependencies. A solver would help with this.
> >> For the time being I work around the problem by run
0:47PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Linus Torvalds
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Nicolas Pitre
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> I think Uwe could provide
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 17:21 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Daniel Walker
> > wrote:
> > > It just doesn't feel like Kconfig was meant to do this, it feel like
> > > somewhat of an abuse ..
> >
> > Why? It uses the Kcon
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Mitch Bradley wrote:
> > One counterargument, of course, is that "there is a better way". But it is
> > only "better" under a cost function that values things differently than the
> > vendors value them. Were that not so, the vendors would gladly use th
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> >
> >
> > > First, the primary use case for "keeping OFW alive" is for debugging
> > > purposes.
> > > OFW remains res
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> First, the primary use case for "keeping OFW alive" is for debugging purposes.
> OFW remains resident in memory so that, if the OS is set to allow it (not the
> default), a hot-key freezes the OS and enters OFW, where a human can inspect
> the state of d
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, David Gibson wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:02:15PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > [sni]
> > > > > That's sort of a self-fulfill
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Grant Likely wrote:
> The discussion *started* with a request to review this document:
>
> http://devicetree.org/Device_Tree_Usage
>
> Which is in early draft form (which is why the arm list wasn't
> initially cc'd. I was soliciting feedback from the current device tree
> us
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, David Gibson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:02:15PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> [sni]
> > > That's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the OS doesn't trust the
> > > firmware, there is no pressure for the firmware to "get it right".
> >
> > Firmware will not get it
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010, Grant Likely wrote:
> [cc'ing linux-arm-kernel]
>
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> > BTW. I notice no ARM list is CCed on this discussion ... maybe we should
> > fix that ?
>
> cc'ing linux-arm-kernel in all my replies
I'm afraid this won't be en
63 matches
Mail list logo
