James Yang wrote on 02/08/2014 07:49:40 AM:
> From: James Yang
> To: Gabriel Paubert
> Cc: Stephen N Chivers , Chris Proctor
> ,
> Date: 02/08/2014 07:49 AM
> Subject: Re: arch/powerpc/math-emu/mtfsf.c - incorrect mask?
>
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
>
> >Hi Stephen,
> >
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 01:57:39AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > > It seems like a better approach would be to do this when a node is
> > > brought
> > > online and determine the fallback node based not on the zonelists as you
> > > do here but rath
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:38:55PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 07.02.2014 [12:51:07 -0600], Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Here is a draft of a patch to make this work with memoryless nodes.
>
> Hi Christoph, this should be tested instead of Joonsoo's patch 2 (and 3)?
Hello,
I guess tha
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:49:57AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > > This check wouild need to be something that checks for other contigencies
> > > in the page allocator as well. A simple solution would be to actually run
> > > a GFP_THIS_NODE alloc
On 2014/2/6 4:40, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Yijing,
>
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, David Laight wrote:
>
>> From: Linuxppc-dev Tony Prisk
>>> On 23/01/14 20:12, Yijing Wang wrote:
Currently, clocksource_register() and __clocksource_register_scale()
functions always return 0, it's pointless, ma
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:51:07PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Here is a draft of a patch to make this work with memoryless nodes.
>
> The first thing is that we modify node_match to also match if we hit an
> empty node. In that case we simply take the current slab if its there.
Why not ins
This patchset is a precursor for enabling deep idle states on powerpc,
when the local CPU timers stop. The tick broadcast framework in
the Linux Kernel today handles wakeup of such CPUs at their next timer event
by using an external clock device. At the expiry of this clock device, IPIs
are sent to
From: Srivatsa S. Bhat
For scalability and performance reasons, we want the tick broadcast IPIs
to be handled as efficiently as possible. Fixed IPI messages
are one of the most efficient mechanisms available - they are faster than
the smp_call_function mechanism because the IPI handlers are fixed
From: Srivatsa S. Bhat
The IPI handlers for both PPC_MSG_CALL_FUNC and PPC_MSG_CALL_FUNC_SINGLE map
to a common implementation - generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(). So,
we can consolidate them and save one of the IPI message slots, (which are
precious on powerpc, since only 4 of those s
From: Preeti U Murthy
Split timer_interrupt(), which is the local timer interrupt handler on ppc
into routines called during regular interrupt handling and __timer_interrupt(),
which takes care of running local timers and collecting time related stats.
This will enable callers interested only in
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 13:28 -0600, Tom Musta wrote:
> My read is consistent with Torsten's ... this looks like a bad idea.
>
> Look at the RTL for sthcx. on page 692 (Power ISA V2.06) and you will
> see this:
>
> if RESERVE then
> if RESERVE_LENGTH = 2 then
> ...
> else
> undefined_
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 10:02 +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > > > Can you pair lwarx with sthcx ? I couldn't immediately find the answer
> > > > in the PowerISA doc. If so I think you can do better by being able to
> > > > atomically load both tickets but only storing the head without affecting
> > >
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 09:51 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2014, at 3:02 AM, Torsten Duwe wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:19:52PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 18:37 +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 05:38:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote
On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 17:58 +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> typedef struct {
> - volatile unsigned int slock;
> -} arch_spinlock_t;
> + union {
> + __ticketpair_t head_tail;
> + struct __raw_tickets {
> +#ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN__ /* The "tail" part should
Hi Peter,
On 02/07/2014 06:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:11:26PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> But observe the idle state "snooze" on powerpc. The power that this idle
>> state saves is through the lowering of the thread priority of the CPU.
>> After it lowers the th
15 matches
Mail list logo
