On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 12:57 -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > cpu_last_thread_in_core(cpu) is a moving target. You want something
> > like:
> >
> > cpu = cpu_first_thread_in_core(cpu);
> > last = cpu_last_thread_in_core(cpu);
> > while (cpu <= last) {
> > __clear_bit(id, stale_map[cpu]);
> >
> for (cpu = cpu_first_thread_in_core(cpu);
> cpu <= cpu_last_thread_in_core(cpu); cpu++)
> __clear_bit(id, stale_map[cpu]);
>
> ==
>
> cpu = cpu_first_thread_in_core(cpu);
> while (cpu <= cpu_last_thread_in_core(cpu)) {
> __clear_bit(id, stale_map[cpu]);
> cpu++;
> }
>
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 12:06 -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 11:21 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >
> > > for (cpu = cpu_first_thread_in_core(cpu);
> > > cpu <= cpu_last_thread_in_core(cpu); cpu++)
> > >__clear_bit
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 11:21 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 08:29 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 22:35 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> /* XXX This clear should ultimately be par
On Aug 2, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 08:29 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 22:35 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
/* XXX This clear should ultimately be part of
local_flush_tlb_mm */
- __clear_bit(id, stale_map
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 08:29 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 22:35 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > > /* XXX This clear should ultimately be part of
> > local_flush_tlb_mm */
> > > - __clear_bit(id, stale_map[cpu]);
> > > + for (cpu = cp
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 22:35 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > /* XXX This clear should ultimately be part of
> local_flush_tlb_mm */
> > - __clear_bit(id, stale_map[cpu]);
> > + for (cpu = cpu_first_thread_in_core(cpu);
> > + cpu <= cpu_last_thread_
On Jul 30, 2009, at 10:12 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jul 24, 2009, at 4:15 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
The current "no hash" MMU context management code is written with
the assumption that one CPU == one TLB. This is not the case on
implementations that support HW multithreading, where s
On Jul 24, 2009, at 4:15 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
The current "no hash" MMU context management code is written with
the assumption that one CPU == one TLB. This is not the case on
implementations that support HW multithreading, where several
linux CPUs can share the same TLB.
This add
