* pet...@infradead.org [2020-08-06 15:15:47]:
> > But my understanding is most LPARs don't get migrated back and forth,
> > they'll start life on a P8 and only get migrated to a P9 once when the
> > customer gets a P9. They might then run for a long time (months to
> > years) on the P9 in P8
On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 10:25:12PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> pet...@infradead.org writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 03:32:25PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >
> >> That brings with it a bunch of problems, such as existing software that
> >> has been developed/configured for Power8 and
* pet...@infradead.org [2020-08-06 10:54:29]:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 03:32:25PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > That brings with it a bunch of problems, such as existing software that
> > has been developed/configured for Power8 and expects to see SMT8.
> >
> > We also allow LPARs to
pet...@infradead.org writes:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 03:32:25PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
>> That brings with it a bunch of problems, such as existing software that
>> has been developed/configured for Power8 and expects to see SMT8.
>>
>> We also allow LPARs to be live migrated from
On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 03:32:25PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> That brings with it a bunch of problems, such as existing software that
> has been developed/configured for Power8 and expects to see SMT8.
>
> We also allow LPARs to be live migrated from Power8 to Power9 (and back), so
>
pet...@infradead.org writes:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:40:07PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>> * pet...@infradead.org [2020-08-04 12:45:20]:
>>
>> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:03:06AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>> > > cpu_smt_mask tracks topology_sibling_cpumask. This would be good
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:40:07PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * pet...@infradead.org [2020-08-04 12:45:20]:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:03:06AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > cpu_smt_mask tracks topology_sibling_cpumask. This would be good for
> > > most architectures. One of
* pet...@infradead.org [2020-08-04 12:45:20]:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:03:06AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > cpu_smt_mask tracks topology_sibling_cpumask. This would be good for
> > most architectures. One of the users of cpu_smt_mask(), would be to
> > identify idle-cores. On Power9,
On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:03:06AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> cpu_smt_mask tracks topology_sibling_cpumask. This would be good for
> most architectures. One of the users of cpu_smt_mask(), would be to
> identify idle-cores. On Power9, a pair of cores can be presented by the
> firmware as a
cpu_smt_mask tracks topology_sibling_cpumask. This would be good for
most architectures. One of the users of cpu_smt_mask(), would be to
identify idle-cores. On Power9, a pair of cores can be presented by the
firmware as a big-core for backward compatibility reasons.
In order to maintain
10 matches
Mail list logo
