Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 11:46 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 11:14 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > If you suggest that I > > should stop caring about UV than I do so. Please post a patch that adds > > a dependency to UV on PREEMPT so that part of the

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 11:46 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 11:14 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > If you suggest that I > > should stop caring about UV than I do so. Please post a patch that adds > > a dependency to UV on PREEMPT so that part of the

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 11:14 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-05-22 10:24:22 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > If I were in your shoes, I think I'd just stop caring about UV until a > > real user appears. AFAIK, I'm the only guy who ever ran RT on UV, and > > I only did so

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 11:14 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-05-22 10:24:22 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > If I were in your shoes, I think I'd just stop caring about UV until a > > real user appears. AFAIK, I'm the only guy who ever ran RT on UV, and > > I only did so

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On 2018-05-22 10:24:22 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 08:50 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > Regarding the preempt_disable() in the original patch in uv_read_rtc(): > > This looks essential for PREEMPT configs. Is it possible to get this > > tested by

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On 2018-05-22 10:24:22 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 08:50 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > Regarding the preempt_disable() in the original patch in uv_read_rtc(): > > This looks essential for PREEMPT configs. Is it possible to get this > > tested by

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 08:50 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > Regarding the preempt_disable() in the original patch in uv_read_rtc(): > This looks essential for PREEMPT configs. Is it possible to get this > tested by someone or else get rid of the UV code? It looks broken for >

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 08:50 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > Regarding the preempt_disable() in the original patch in uv_read_rtc(): > This looks essential for PREEMPT configs. Is it possible to get this > tested by someone or else get rid of the UV code? It looks broken for >

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On 2018-05-19 16:09:56 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote: > None of that patch is needed for a UV3000, but the below is. It's > likely still valid for now ancient UV boxen, but the UV100 the patch > was originally written for (2011/2.6.33-rt) has apparently wandered off > to become a beer keg or

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On 2018-05-19 16:09:56 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote: > None of that patch is needed for a UV3000, but the below is. It's > likely still valid for now ancient UV boxen, but the UV100 the patch > was originally written for (2011/2.6.33-rt) has apparently wandered off > to become a beer keg or

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 09:39 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-05-06 12:59:19 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 12:26 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 May 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > > > From: Mike Galbraith

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 09:39 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-05-06 12:59:19 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 12:26 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 May 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > > > From: Mike Galbraith > > > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 09:39 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-05-06 12:59:19 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 12:26 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 May 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > > > From: Mike Galbraith

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 09:39 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-05-06 12:59:19 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 12:26 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 May 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > > > From: Mike Galbraith > > > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On 2018-05-06 12:59:19 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 12:26 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Fri, 4 May 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > From: Mike Galbraith > > > > > > Shrug. Lots of hobbyists have a beast in their

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On 2018-05-06 12:59:19 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 12:26 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Fri, 4 May 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > From: Mike Galbraith > > > > > > Shrug. Lots of hobbyists have a beast in their basement, right? > > > > This

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 12:26 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 4 May 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > From: Mike Galbraith > > > > Shrug. Lots of hobbyists have a beast in their basement, right? > > This hardly qualifies as a proper changelog ...

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 12:26 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 4 May 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > From: Mike Galbraith > > > > Shrug. Lots of hobbyists have a beast in their basement, right? > > This hardly qualifies as a proper changelog ... Hm, that wasn't intended to

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Fri, 4 May 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > From: Mike Galbraith > > Shrug. Lots of hobbyists have a beast in their basement, right? This hardly qualifies as a proper changelog ... > } > @@ -299,13 +299,17 @@ static int uv_rtc_unset_timer(int cpu, i >

Re: [PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

On Fri, 4 May 2018, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > From: Mike Galbraith > > Shrug. Lots of hobbyists have a beast in their basement, right? This hardly qualifies as a proper changelog ... > } > @@ -299,13 +299,17 @@ static int uv_rtc_unset_timer(int cpu, i > static u64

[PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

From: Mike Galbraith Shrug. Lots of hobbyists have a beast in their basement, right? Cc: x...@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior --- arch/x86/include/asm/uv/uv_bau.h | 14

[PATCH] x86: UV: raw_spinlock conversion

From: Mike Galbraith Shrug. Lots of hobbyists have a beast in their basement, right? Cc: x...@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior --- arch/x86/include/asm/uv/uv_bau.h | 14 +++--- arch/x86/platform/uv/tlb_uv.c| 26