On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:38:54 +1100 Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sebastien Dugue writes:
>
> > In pseries_dedicated_idle_sleep(), if we need to exit idle during the
> > snooze period (i.e. need_resched or cpu has been offlined), then we should
> >
Hi Nathan,
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:14:33 -0600 Nathan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, I have some questions about this patch.
>
> Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> >
> > Currently, pseries_cpu_die() calls msleep() while polling RTAS for
> > the status of the
In pseries_dedicated_idle_sleep(), if we need to exit idle during the
snooze period (i.e. need_resched or cpu has been offlined), then we should
re-disable the interrupts and clear TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG before leaving.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Paul Mackerras &
ibmebus_free_irq() frees the IRQ but does not remove its mapping which
results in stale entries in the map.
Fix this by adding a call to irq_dispose_mapping() in ibmebus_free_irq().
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
s, whereas without it, it quickly dies after ~50 iterations.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 inser
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:34:52 -0500 Milton Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2008, at 9:36 AM, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
>
> >
> > The 'ibm,interrupt-server#-size' properties are not cpu nodes
> > properties,
> > but rather
).
Also this adds a check for mismatched sizes across the interrupt source
controller nodes. Not sure this is necessary as in this case the firmware
might be seriously busted.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:40:28 -0500 "Milton Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (I trimmed the cc list for the implementation discussion).
Yep, good thing.
> >
> > Whoops, my bad, in the non threaded case, there's no
> > mask at all, only an unmask+eoi at the end, maybe that's
> > an over
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:42:15 -0500 Milton Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 7:30 AM, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > Hi Milton,
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:58:22 -0500 (CDT) Milton Miller
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Mon Sep 1
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:36:19 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > Do you mean creating a custom fasteoi handler into xics.c? Also, it's
> > not clear to me from looking at the code how you go about changing the
> > cpu priority.
>
> Yup. I think the priority is the CP
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:22:41 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 09:18 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, that's the right approach then. It should work. I don't know
> > what
> > >
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:14:07 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > There may be some implicit assumption in that we expect the cpu
> > priority to be returned to normal by the EOI, but there is nothing in
> > the hardware that requires the EOI to come from the same cpu
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:15:17 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 14:35 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:17:47 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Ben,
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:17:47 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 04:58 -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
> > The per-interrupt mask and unmask calls have to go through RTAS, a
> > single-threaded global context, which in addition to increasing
> >
at or implement any changes for how xics
> works with generic irq, but I'm trying to understand what the rt kernel
> is trying to accomplish with this statement:
>
> On Mon Sep 15 at 18:04:06 EST in 2008, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > When entering the low level handler, l
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:42:05 +0200 Christoph Raisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 18.09.2008 11:27:13:
>
> >
> > It would be really interresting to know if the eHCA exhibits the same
> > problem under -rt as
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:53:54 +0200 Christoph Raisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15.09.2008 10:04:06:
> > [PATCH HACK] powerpc: quick hack to get a functional eHEA with
> > hardirq preemption
> >
> > Sebasti
Hi Anton,
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:59:47 +0400 Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 03:13:32PM +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> [...]
> > > we are a bit worried about putting this into the mainstream part of non
> > > real
> &
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:13:13 +0200 Thomas Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:18:27 +0200 Thomas Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> NACK!
> >>
> >> I regret but this patch is wrong. It
_handles()
and ehea_update_bcmc_registrations() instead of being at each call site.
Thanks,
Sebastien.
>
> Thanks
> Thomas
>
>
>
> Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > Looks like to me that the ehea_fw_handles.lock mutex and the
> > ehea_bcmc_regs.lock spinlock ar
> This way we make sure we don't break the scheme for
> eHEA / eHCA.
Sure, I do not want to break anything, quite the opposite in fact ;-)
Thanks,
Sebastien.
>
> Regards,
> Jan-Bernd, Christoph
>
>
> Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > WARNING: HACK - HACK
interrupts are processed by the fasteoi handler.
It works for the eHEA, dunno for the eHCA.
So, unless all the designers of the XICS & eHEA have been shot to keep it
a secret, could someone knowledgeable shed some light on this issue.
Thanks,
Sebastien.
Not-Signed-off-by: Seba
Add a .gitignore in arch/powerpc/kernel to ignore the generated
vmlinux.lds.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/.gitignore |1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kernel/.gitignore
diff --git
.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/net/ehea/ehea_main.c | 26 --
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ehea/ehea_main.c b/drivers/net/ehea/ehea_main.c
index b70c531..c765ec6 100644
--- a/drivers/ne
Hi,
here are 2 fixes for the ehea driver (nothing urgent here):
- fix a typo which prevents building when DEBUG is #defined
- fix mutex and spinlock usage in ehea_main
and the diffstat for the patchset:
drivers/net/ehea/ehea_main.c | 26 --
drivers/net/ehea
Fix typo in ehea_h_query_ehea() which prevents building when DEBUG is on.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/net/ehea/ehea_phyp.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ehea/ehea_phyp.c b/drivers/net/ehea/ehea_
o the radix-tree
in interrupt context, turn the GFP_ATOMIC allocations into GFP_KERNEL ones.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi ,
here is V4 for the powerpc IRQ radix tree reverse mapping rework.
Big thanks to Benjamin Herrenschmidt for his most useful comments.
V3 -> V4: from comments by Benjamin Herrenschmidt
- Dump the use of a global atomic variable for synchronization between the
radix tree initiali
static array (irq_map) elements which can never go under us
to simplify the locking.
Concurrency between readers and writers is handled by the intrinsic
properties of the lockless radix tree. Concurrency between writers is handled
with a global mutex.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EM
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:58:56 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > There's nothing to 'de-initialize' here, or am I missing something?
> > radix_tree_insert() will return ENOMEM and won't insert anything.
>
> Forget my comment, just fallback.
>
> > > Or you can fallba
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:34:03 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > > > I could not think of anything simple so far and I'm open for
> > > > suggestions.
> > >
> > > GFP_KERNEL should not fail, it will just block no ?
> >
> > No it won't block and will fail (returns
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:52:19 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 15:41 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:23:01 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:23:01 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> BTW. It would be good to try to turn the GFP_ATOMIC into GFP_KERNEL,
That would be nice indeed
> maybe using a semaphore instead of a lock to protect insertion vs.
> initialisation.
a semaphore? are you
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:22:06 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:30 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > The radix trees used by interrupt controllers for their irq reverse mapping
> > (currently only the XICS found on pSeries) h
Hi Benjamin,
sorry for the (long) delay, just came back from vacation.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:21:24 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:30 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > irq_radix_revmap() currently serves 2 purposes, irq
: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/irq.h |1 +
arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c | 74 ++---
has been initialized and checked before any reader or writer access just
like we used to check for tree.gfp_mask != 0 before.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Michae
Hi ,
here is V3 for the powerpc IRQ radix tree reverse mapping rework.
V2 -> V3: from comments by Benjamin Herrenschmidt and Daniel Walker
- Move the initialization of the radix tree back into irq_late_init() and
insert pre-existing irqs into the tree at that time.
- One whitespa
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:39:49 +0200 Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LD vmlinux.o
> mm/built-in.o: In function `.arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown':
> (.text+0x1d084): multiple definition of `.arch_get_unmapped_area_topdown'
> arch/powerpc/mm/built-in.o:(.text+0x7240): first defined h
On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:31:36 -0700 Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 13:08 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
>
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/irq.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/irq.h
> > @@ -119,6 +119,7 @@ struct irq_h
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:05:03 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > - Remove the populating of the tree from the revmap function as
> >you already do
> > - Move it to irq_create_mapping() for the normal case
> > - For pre-existing interrupt, have the generic code th
Hi Benjamin,
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:03:46 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 13:08 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > The radix tree used for fast irq reverse mapping by the XICS is initialized
> > late in the boot pro
: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/irq.h|1 +
arch/powerpc/kernel/
irq_radix_revmap() currently serves 2 purposes, irq mapping lookup
and insertion which happen in interrupt and process context respectively.
Separate the function into its 2 components, one for lookup only and one
for insertion only.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
() (the mm is already up but no interrupts
have been registered at that point) to avoid having to insert a mapping into
the tree in interrupt context. This will help in simplifying the locking
constraints and move to a lockless radix tree in subsequent patches.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue
Hi ,
here is V2 of the patchset posted on July 31st updated from the comments
made by Michael Ellerman.
V1 -> V2:
- Initialize the XICS radix tree in xics code and only for that irq_host
rather than doing it for all the hosts in the powerpc irq generic code
(although the hosts
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:39:26 +1000 Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 15:26 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:01:39 +1000 Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2008-07
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:01:39 +1000 Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 22:58 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 14:00 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:40:56 +1000 Michael Ellerman <[EMA
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:00:02 +0200 Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:40:56 +1000 Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 11:40 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > >
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:40:56 +1000 Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 11:40 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > The radix tree used for fast irq reverse mapping by the XICS is initialized
> > late in the boot process, after the
OK, I goofed up with git-format-patch, forgot the --numbered option.
The patches subjects should read:
[PATCH 1/3] powerpc - Initialize the irq radix tree earlier
[PATCH 2/3] powerpc - Separate the irq radix tree insertion and lookup
[PATCH 3/3] powerpc - Make the irq
: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c | 75 ++--
include/asm-powerpc/irq.h |1 +
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 64
Hi ,
here is a respin of the patches I posted last week for the RT kernel now
targeted
for mainline (http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/24/98). Thomas, steven, a note for you
at the end.
The goal of this patchset is to simplify the locking constraints on the radix
tree used for IRQ reverse mappin
irq_radix_revmap() currently serves 2 purposes, irq mapping lookup
and insertion which happen in interrupt and process context respectively.
Separate the function into its 2 components, one for lookup only and one
for insertion only.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
need any longer to check for
(host->revmap_data.tree.gfp_mask != 0) to know if the tree have been
initialized.
Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/ir
Hi,
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:23:00 -0500 Nathan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm seeing warnings from the lockdep code itself in recent kernels on
> a Power6 blade (v2.6.26 and benh's -next branch).
>
> Something to do with powerpc's "lazy" interrupt-disabling, perhaps?
>
> A couple of s
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:40:21 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 10:36 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:27:20 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:27:20 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 09:49 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >
> > The only advantage of the concurrent radix tree over this model is that
> > it can potentially do multiple modification operations at the s
Hi Peter,
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:49:37 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 14:18 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:11:34 +1000 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday 24 Ju
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:11:34 +1000 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 24 July 2008 20:50, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > From: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:56:41 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH][RT] powerpc - Make t
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:17:38 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > The root cause of this bug lies in the fact that the XICS interrupt
> > controller
> > uses a radix tree for its reverse irq mapping and that we cannot allocate
> > the tree
> > nodes (even GFP_ATOMIC)
From: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:56:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH][RT] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping radix tree lockless
The radix tree used by interrupt controllers for their irq reverse mapping
(currently only the XICS found on pSeries) have a c
(This is resend as vger dropped my previous attempt, sorry for the duplication)
Hi,
here are 2 patches for fixing the following bug occuring on IBM pSeries under
an RT kernel:
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context swapper(1) at
kernel/rtmutex.c:739
in_atomic():1 [0002], irq
From: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:05:24 +0200
Subject: [PATCH][RT] powerpc - XICS: move the call to irq_radix_revmap from
xics_startup to xics_host_map
This patch moves the insertion of an irq into the reverse mapping radix tree
from xics_startup(
From: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:56:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH][RT] powerpc - Make the irq reverse mapping radix tree lockless
The radix tree used by interrupt controllers for their irq reverse mapping
(currently only the XICS found on pSeries) have a c
From: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:05:24 +0200
Subject: [PATCH][RT] powerpc - XICS: move the call to irq_radix_revmap from
xics_startup to xics_host_map
This patch moves the insertion of an irq into the reverse mapping radix tree
from xics_startup(
Hi,
here are 2 patches for fixing the following bug occuring on IBM pSeries under
an RT kernel:
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context swapper(1) at
kernel/rtmutex.c:739
in_atomic():1 [0002], irqs_disabled():1
Call Trace:
[c001e20f3340] [c0010370] .show_stack+0x70
iple BUG messages are
> generated "BUG: init:1 task might have lost a preemption check!".
> After booting a kernel with these patches applied, these messages
> don't appear.
That does indeed greatly reduce BUGs display. Good. Thanks.
Tested-by: Sebastien Dugue <[EMAI
Hi Chirag
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:16:34 +0530 Chirag Jog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I was trying out the realtime linux kernel 2.6.25.4-rt3 on a powerpc box.
> The kernel booted fine.
> On running the matrix_mult testcase from the real-time testsuite
> in ltp (ltp/testca
69 matches
Mail list logo
