On Wed, 2015-07-10 at 05:07:40 UTC, Ian Munsie wrote:
> From: Christophe Lombard
>
> The scheduled process area is currently allocated before assigning the
> correct maximum processes to the AFU, which will mean we only ever
> allocate a fixed number of pages for the scheduled process area. This
From: Christophe Lombard
The scheduled process area is currently allocated before assigning the
correct maximum processes to the AFU, which will mean we only ever
allocate a fixed number of pages for the scheduled process area. This
will limit us to 958 processes with 2 x 64K pages. If we try to
On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 14:51 +1100, Ian Munsie wrote:
> The explanation probably still needs to be expanded more (e.g. this
> could cause a crash for an AFU that supports more than about a thousand
> processes) - see my other email in reply to v1 for more, but I'm happy
> for this to go in as is (bu
The explanation probably still needs to be expanded more (e.g. this
could cause a crash for an AFU that supports more than about a thousand
processes) - see my other email in reply to v1 for more, but I'm happy
for this to go in as is (but ultimately that's mpe's call).
It should also be CCd to st
Excerpts from Michael Ellerman's message of 2015-10-06 17:19:02 +1100:
> On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 16:01 +0200, Christophe Lombard wrote:
> > This moves the initialisation of the num_procs to before the SPA
> > allocation.
>
> Why? What does it fix? I can't tell from the diff or the change log.
This
This moves the initialisation of the num_procs to before the SPA
allocation.
The field 'num_procs' of the structure cxl_afu is not updated to the
right value (maximum number of processes that can be supported by
the AFU) when the pages are allocated (i.e. when cxl_alloc_spa() is called).
The numbe
The field 'num_procs' of the structure cxl_afu is not updated to the
right value (maximum number of processes that can be supported by
the AFU) when the pages are allocated (i.e. when cxl_alloc_spa() is called).
The number of allocates pages depends on the max number of processes.
Thanks
On 06
On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 16:01 +0200, Christophe Lombard wrote:
> This moves the initialisation of the num_procs to before the SPA
> allocation.
Why? What does it fix? I can't tell from the diff or the change log.
cheers
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Lin
Acked-by: Ian Munsie
Excerpts from Christophe Lombard's message of 2015-10-03 00:01:25 +1000:
> This moves the initialisation of the num_procs to before the SPA
> allocation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Lombard
> ---
> drivers/misc/cxl/native.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 del
This moves the initialisation of the num_procs to before the SPA
allocation.
Signed-off-by: Christophe Lombard
---
drivers/misc/cxl/native.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/misc/cxl/native.c b/drivers/misc/cxl/native.c
index b37f2e8..d2e75c8 100644
---
10 matches
Mail list logo
