On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:29:59AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 14:37 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:10:53PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> >On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 18:23 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
.../...
>No, sorry, I mean how does the user get info
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 02:49:13PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
.../...
>
>VFIO_EEH_RECOVER?
>
Then it should contain VFIO_EEH_PE_RESET, which is part of the
recovery. I don't expect the recovery to be done with one ioctl
command :-)
I personally prefer to keep VFIO_EEH_PE_CONFIUGRE, which mean
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:49:19AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 14:30 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 23.05.14 13:58, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:52:23AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> >>> Am 23.05.2014 um 05:23 schrieb Alex Williamson
>> >>> :
>>
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 12:12 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 12:06 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > For what it's worth: I can't reproduce this error with the cross
> > compiler now shipped with Fedora 20 (ie, powerpc64-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC)
> > 4.8.1 20130717 (Red Hat 4.8.1-5)). It show
Hi All,
My PA6T system doesn't boot since patch
9000c17dc0f9c910267d2661225c9d33a227b27e from 08/04/14 (powerpc/powernv:
Fix endian issues with sensor code One OPAL call and one device tree
property needed byte swapping).
Experimental protocol:
git checkout -f 01d8885785a60ae8f4c37b0ed75bdc
Highlights include a few new boards, a device tree binding for CCF
(including backwards-compatible device tree updates to distinguish
incompatible versions), and some fixes.
The following changes since commit f6869e7fe657bd977e72954cd78c5871a6a4f71d:
Merge remote-tracking branch 'anton/abiv2' i
The failing code snippet :
void ttwu_activate(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int en_flags)
{
c0088b90: 7c 08 02 a6 mflrr0
c0088b94: 90 01 00 04 stw r0,4(r1)
c0088b98: 4b f8 87 29 bl c00112c0 <_mcount>
c0088b9c: 94 21 ff f0 stwur1,-16(
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 12:06 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 09:33 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > Scott,
> >
> > On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 17:37 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S:
> > > Assembler messages:
> > > /home/scott/f
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 03:03 -0500, Liu Shengzhou-B36685 wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 6:52 AM
> > To: Liu Shengzhou-B36685
> > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> > Subject: Re: [2/2] powerpc/corenet64_smp_defconfig: enable RTC supp
This patch enables get and set of miscellaneous registers through ptrace
PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing new powerpc
specific register set REGSET_MISC support corresponding to the new ELF
core note NT_PPC_MISC added previously in this regard.
Signed-off-by: Anshuman Kha
This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
four new powerpc specific register sets i.e REGSET_TM_SPR, REGSET_TM_CGPR,
REGSET_TM_CFPR, REGSET_CVMX support corresponding to these following new
ELF co
This patch adds four new note sections for transactional memory
and one note section for some miscellaneous registers. This addition
of new elf note sections extends the existing elf ABI without affecting
it in any manner.
Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual
---
include/uapi/linux/elf.h | 5 +
This patch series adds five new ELF core note sections which can be
used with existing ptrace request PTRACE_GETREGSET/SETREGSET for accessing
various transactional memory and miscellaneous register sets on PowerPC
platform. Please find a test program exploiting these new ELF core note
type
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 14:30 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 23.05.14 13:58, Gavin Shan wrote:
> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:52:23AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am 23.05.2014 um 05:23 schrieb Alex Williamson
> >>> :
> >>>
> On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 10:37 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
>
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 15:00 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 14:37 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> > >There's no notification, the user needs to observe the return value an
> > >poll? Should we be enabling an eventfd to notify the user of the state
> > >change?
> > >
> >
>
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 14:37 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:10:53PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 18:23 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> >> The patch adds new IOCTL commands for VFIO PCI device to support
> >> EEH functionality for PCI devices, which have be
On 05/22/2014 10:38 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> I agree.
>
>> >
>> > Maybe we should leave this for another day, and have tm_spr_active
>> > return 0 instead of -ENODEV when the machine doesn't have the hardware,
>> > or not install that hook at all. Seems like the effect will be the same,
>>
On 23.05.14 14:51, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 08:52 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 23.05.2014 um 05:23 schrieb Alex Williamson :
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 10:37 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:17:30AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:55:
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 08:52 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> > Am 23.05.2014 um 05:23 schrieb Alex Williamson :
> >
> >> On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 10:37 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> >>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:17:30AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:55:29AM +0200, Alexande
On 23.05.14 14:43, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 01:58:50PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 23.05.14 13:55, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:58:22AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 23.05.14 09:37, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:55:15AM +0200, Alexander G
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 01:58:50PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>On 23.05.14 13:55, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:58:22AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>On 23.05.14 09:37, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:55:15AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>Am 23.05.2014 u
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:40:27 +0300 (EEST) "Kirill A. Shutemov"
> wrote:
>
> > > Or something. Can we please get some code commentary over
> > > do_fault_around() describing this design decision and explaining the
> > > reasoning behind it?
> >
> > I'll do this. But if do
On 23.05.14 13:58, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:52:23AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 23.05.2014 um 05:23 schrieb Alex Williamson :
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 10:37 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:17:30AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11
On 23.05.14 13:55, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:58:22AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 23.05.14 09:37, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:55:15AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 23.05.2014 um 06:37 schrieb Gavin Shan :
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:10:53PM -0600, Alex
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:52:23AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
>> Am 23.05.2014 um 05:23 schrieb Alex Williamson :
>>
>>> On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 10:37 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:17:30AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:55:29AM +0200, Alexa
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:58:22AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>On 23.05.14 09:37, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:55:15AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 23.05.2014 um 06:37 schrieb Gavin Shan :
>On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:10:53PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>On Th
Alex,
> >> If it's the latter, we could just have ppc64_cpu --smt=x also set the
> >> subcore amount in parallel to the thread count.
> > FWIW on powernv we just nap the threads on hotplug.
> >
> >> The reason I'm bringing this up is that I'm not quite sure who would be
> >> the instance doing the
On 23.05.14 12:11, Michael Neuling wrote:
Also, is there any performance penalty associated with split core mode?
If not, could we just always default to split-by-4 on POWER8 bare metal?
Yeah, there is a performance hit . When you are split (ie
subcores_per_core = 2 or 4), the core is stuck in
> >> Also, is there any performance penalty associated with split core mode?
> >> If not, could we just always default to split-by-4 on POWER8 bare metal?
> > Yeah, there is a performance hit . When you are split (ie
> > subcores_per_core = 2 or 4), the core is stuck in SMT8 mode. So if you
> > o
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 09:33 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Scott,
>
> On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 17:37 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S: Assembler
> > messages:
> > /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S:89: Error:
> >
On 23.05.14 12:00, Michael Neuling wrote:
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 11:53 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 23.05.14 10:15, Michael Neuling wrote:
This patch series implements split core mode on POWER8. This enables up to 4
subcores per core which can each independently run guests (per guest SPRs l
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 11:53 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 23.05.14 10:15, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > This patch series implements split core mode on POWER8. This enables up to
> > 4
> > subcores per core which can each independently run guests (per guest SPRs
> > like
> > SDR1, LPIDR etc are
On 23.05.14 09:37, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:55:15AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 23.05.2014 um 06:37 schrieb Gavin Shan :
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:10:53PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 18:23 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
The patch adds new IOCTL comma
On 23.05.14 10:15, Michael Neuling wrote:
This patch series implements split core mode on POWER8. This enables up to 4
subcores per core which can each independently run guests (per guest SPRs like
SDR1, LPIDR etc are replicated per subcore). Lots more documentation on this
feature in the code
Some backends call hvc_kick() to wakeup the HVC thread from its
slumber upon incoming characters. This however doesn't work
properly because it uses msleep_interruptible() which is mostly
immune to wake_up_process(). It will basically go back to sleep
until the timeout is expired (only signals can
Add support for Freescale T2080/T2081 QDS Development System Board.
The T2080QDS Development System is a high-performance computing,
evaluation, and development platform that supports T2080 QorIQ
Power Architecture processor, with following major features:
T2080QDS feature overview:
Processor:
-
T2080PCIe-RDB is a Freescale Reference Design Board that hosts T2080 SoC.
The board feature overview:
Processor:
- T2080 SoC integrating four 64-bit dual-threads e6500 cores up to 1.8GHz
DDR Memory:
- Single memory controller capable of supporting DDR3 and DDR3-LP devices
- 72bit 4GB DDR3-LP SOD
Add support for T2080/T2081 SoC without DPAA components.
The T2080 SoC includes the following function and features:
- Four dual-threaded 64-bit Power architecture e6500 cores, up to 1.8GHz
- 2MB L2 cache and 512KB CoreNet platform cache (CPC)
- Hierarchical interconnect fabric
- One 32-/64-bit DD
As of commit 799fef06123f86ff69cf754f996219e6ad1678f8 ("powerpc: Use
generic idle loop"), this applies to arch_cpu_idle() instead of cpu_idle().
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/irq.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1
> -Original Message-
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/devices/m25p80.c
> > @@ -745,6 +745,7 @@ static const struct spi_device_id m25p_ids[] = {
> > { "en25q32b", INFO(0x1c3016, 0, 64 * 1024, 64, 0) },
> > { "en25p64",INFO(0x1c2017, 0, 64 * 1024,
From: Michael Ellerman
Upcoming POWER8 chips support a concept called split core. This is where the
core can be split into subcores that although not full cores, are able to
appear as full cores to a guest.
The splitting & unsplitting procedure is mildly complicated, and explained at
length in t
From: Michael Ellerman
To support split core on POWER8 we need to modify various parts of the
KVM code to use threads_per_subcore instead of threads_per_core. On
systems that do not support split core threads_per_subcore ==
threads_per_core and these changes are a nop.
We use threads_per_subcore
From: Michael Ellerman
To support split core we need to change the check in __cpu_up() that
determines if a cpu is allowed to come online.
Currently we refuse to online cpus which are not the primary thread
within their core.
On POWER8 with split core support this check needs to instead refuse
From: Michael Ellerman
On POWER8 we have a new concept of a subcore. This is what happens when
you take a regular core and split it. A subcore is a grouping of two or
four SMT threads, as well as a handfull of SPRs which allows the subcore
to appear as if it were a core from the point of view of
From: Michael Ellerman
To support split core we need to be able to force all secondaries into
nap, so the core can detect they are idle and do an unsplit.
Currently power7_nap() will return without napping if there is an irq
pending. We want to ignore the pending irq and nap anyway, we will deal
From: Michael Ellerman
As part of the support for split core on POWER8, we want to be able to
block splitting of the core while KVM VMs are active.
The logic to do that would be exactly the same as the code we currently
have for inhibiting onlining of secondaries.
Instead of adding an identical
This patch series implements split core mode on POWER8. This enables up to 4
subcores per core which can each independently run guests (per guest SPRs like
SDR1, LPIDR etc are replicated per subcore). Lots more documentation on this
feature in the code and commit messages.
Most of this code is i
> -Original Message-
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 6:52 AM
> To: Liu Shengzhou-B36685
> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [2/2] powerpc/corenet64_smp_defconfig: enable RTC support
>
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/configs/corenet64_smp_defconfig
> > @@ -125,6
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:55:15AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Am 23.05.2014 um 06:37 schrieb Gavin Shan :
>>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:10:53PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 18:23 +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
The patch adds new IOCTL commands for VFIO PCI device to
Scott,
On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 17:37 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S: Assembler
> messages:
> /home/scott/fsl/git/linux/upstream/arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S:89: Error:
> unrecognized opcode: `tlb_miss_prolog_stats'
> /home/scott/fsl/git
50 matches
Mail list logo
