Re: State of PREEMPT_RT in PPC arch

2010-02-19 Thread Wolfram Sang
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 09:34:28PM -0800, Ryan wrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Wolfram Sang w.s...@pengutronix.de wrote: I'm soliciting comments from the community. Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts. Mainline your driver and you are free from such problems :)

Re: [PATCHv4 2/2] powerpc: implement arch_scale_smt_power for Power7

2010-02-19 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 17:05 +1100, Michael Neuling wrote: include/linux/sched.h |2 +- kernel/sched_fair.c | 61 +-- - 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h

Re: [PATCHv4 2/2] powerpc: implement arch_scale_smt_power for Power7

2010-02-19 Thread Michael Neuling
In message 1266573672.1806.70.ca...@laptop you wrote: On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 17:05 +1100, Michael Neuling wrote: include/linux/sched.h |2 +- kernel/sched_fair.c | 61 +++ ++-- - 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Set a smaller value for RECLAIM_DISTANCE to enable zone reclaim

2010-02-19 Thread Mel Gorman
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:07:30AM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote: Hi, The patch below sets a smaller value for RECLAIM_DISTANCE and thus enables zone reclaim. I've no problem with the patch anyway. FYI even with this enabled I could trip it up pretty easily with a multi threaded

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Set a smaller value for RECLAIM_DISTANCE to enable zone reclaim

2010-02-19 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: The patch below sets a smaller value for RECLAIM_DISTANCE and thus enables zone reclaim. I've no problem with the patch anyway. Nor do I. - We seem to end up racing between zone_watermark_ok, zone_reclaim and buffered_rmqueue. Since

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Set a smaller value for RECLAIM_DISTANCE to enable zone reclaim

2010-02-19 Thread Balbir Singh
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Christoph Lameter c...@linux-foundation.org wrote: On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: The patch below sets a smaller value for RECLAIM_DISTANCE and thus enables zone reclaim. I've no problem with the patch anyway. Nor do I. - We seem to end

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Set a smaller value for RECLAIM_DISTANCE to enable zone reclaim

2010-02-19 Thread Balbir Singh
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Anton Blanchard an...@samba.org wrote: I noticed /proc/sys/vm/zone_reclaim_mode was 0 on a ppc64 NUMA box. It gets enabled via this:        /*         * If another node is sufficiently far away then it is better         * to reclaim pages in a zone before

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Set a smaller value for RECLAIM_DISTANCE to enable zone reclaim

2010-02-19 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Balbir Singh wrote: zone_reclaim. The others back off and try the next zone in the zonelist instead. I'm not sure what the original intention was but most likely it was to prevent too many parallel reclaimers in the same zone potentially dumping out way more data than

anyone used the Marvell mv64560?

2010-02-19 Thread Chris Friesen
Is anyone familiar with the mv64560? I'm curious how much difference there might be from the older mv64360 as far as setting up the PCI bus, cpu bus, i2c, memory, etc. I don't see any mention of this chip in current linux sources, but there's some mention of people trying it and it's referenced

Re: [PATCH] eeh: Fixing a bug when pci structure is null

2010-02-19 Thread Breno Leitao
Hi Ben, I'd like to ask about this patch ? Should I re-submit ? Thanks, Breno Leitao wrote: During a EEH recover, the pci_dev structure can be null, mainly if an eeh event is detected during cpi config operation. In this case, the pci_dev will not be known (and will be null) the kernel

Re: [PATCH] eeh: Fixing a bug when pci structure is null

2010-02-19 Thread Linas Vepstas
Hi Paul, Breno, Some confusion -- I've been out of the loop for a while -- I assume its still Paul who is pushing these patches upstream, and not Ben? So Breno, maybe you should resend the patch to Paul? --linas On 19 February 2010 10:43, Breno Leitao lei...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi Ben,

Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Set a smaller value for RECLAIM_DISTANCE to enable zone reclaim

2010-02-19 Thread Balbir Singh
* Christoph Lameter c...@linux-foundation.org [2010-02-19 09:51:12]: On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Balbir Singh wrote: zone_reclaim. The others back off and try the next zone in the zonelist instead. I'm not sure what the original intention was but most likely it was to prevent too many

Re: MPC5200B XLB Configuration Issues, FEC RFIFO Events, ATA Crashes

2010-02-19 Thread Albrecht Dreß
Hi Roman: Sorry for the long delay, I had to fix some other stuff first, before I could launch the test... Here is just a short intermediate result. Am 04.02.10 20:35 schrieb(en) Albrecht Dreß: Actually, I forgot that I have to explicitly enable libata dma on the 5200b, due to the known

Re: State of PREEMPT_RT in PPC arch

2010-02-19 Thread Ryan
Hi Wolfram, On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Wolfram Sang w.s...@pengutronix.de wrote: The list was apropriate. As all people are busy by default, getting no response is not that exceptional. If you need a fast response, you should consider commercial support. I appreciate your comments.

Re: register long sp asm(r1) incorrect

2010-02-19 Thread Pavel Machek
On Mon 2010-02-15 14:15:17, H. Peter Anvin wrote: On 02/15/2010 01:04 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: It's true that most other use of it we have are global scope (local_paca in r13, glibc use of r2/r13, etc...) afaik, but since r1 itself is the stack pointer always, I think they

hrtimers in powerpc arch?

2010-02-19 Thread Xiaogeng Jin
Hi, Is hrtimers supported in the powerpc arch and used in embedded powerpc drivers? I greped ktime_t and hrtimer_start() under arch/powerpc and found not two many calls. Does it indicate the powerpc world doesn't use hrtimers? Thanks, -Ryan. ___