On 2020-11-30 8:58 a.m., Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 11/28/20 00:48, Ankur Arora wrote:
It is possible that there are CPUs with bits for both is_inserting and
is_removing. In that case QemuCpuhpCollectApicIds() would put them in the
PluggedApicIds array and the unplug eventually happens in the next
On 11/28/20 01:43, Ankur Arora wrote:
> On 2020-11-27 7:19 a.m., Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 11/27/20 05:10, Ankur Arora wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah I was wondering what would happen for simultaneous hot add and
>>> remove.
>>> I guess we would always do remove first and then the add, unless we hit
>>> the
On 11/28/20 00:48, Ankur Arora wrote:
> It is possible that there are CPUs with bits for both is_inserting and
> is_removing. In that case QemuCpuhpCollectApicIds() would put them in the
> PluggedApicIds array and the unplug eventually happens in the next
> firmware invocation.
>
> If a CPU has
On 2020-11-27 7:19 a.m., Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 11/27/20 05:10, Ankur Arora wrote:
Yeah I was wondering what would happen for simultaneous hot add and remove.
I guess we would always do remove first and then the add, unless we hit
the break due to max_cpus_per_pass and switch to hot-add mode.
On 2020-11-27 3:47 a.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 20:10:59 -0800
Ankur Arora wrote:
On 2020-11-26 12:38 p.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 12:17:27 +0100
Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 11/24/20 13:25, Igor Mammedov wrote:
If firmware negotiates
On 2020-11-27 7:02 a.m., Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 11/27/20 12:33, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 19:35:30 -0800
Ankur Arora wrote:
On 2020-11-26 4:46 a.m., Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 11/26/20 11:24, Ankur Arora wrote:
On 2020-11-24 4:25 a.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
If firmware
On 11/27/20 16:07, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 15:48:34 +0100
> Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> The firmware logic needs to be aware of is_removing though, at least
>> understand the existence of this bit, as the "get pending" command
>> will report such CPUs too that only have is_removing
On 11/27/20 05:10, Ankur Arora wrote:
> Yeah I was wondering what would happen for simultaneous hot add and remove.
> I guess we would always do remove first and then the add, unless we hit
> the break due to max_cpus_per_pass and switch to hot-add mode.
Considering the firmware only, I disagree
On 11/26/20 21:38, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 12:17:27 +0100
> Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/20 13:25, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>> diff --git a/docs/specs/acpi_cpu_hotplug.txt
>>> b/docs/specs/acpi_cpu_hotplug.txt
>>> index 9bb22d1270..f68ef6e06c 100644
>>> ---
On 11/27/20 12:33, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 19:35:30 -0800
> Ankur Arora wrote:
>
>> On 2020-11-26 4:46 a.m., Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 11/26/20 11:24, Ankur Arora wrote:
On 2020-11-24 4:25 a.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
> If firmware negotiates
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 15:48:34 +0100
Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 11/26/20 21:38, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 12:17:27 +0100
> > Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/24/20 13:25, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>
> >>> diff --git a/docs/specs/acpi_cpu_hotplug.txt
> >>>
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 20:10:59 -0800
Ankur Arora wrote:
> On 2020-11-26 12:38 p.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 12:17:27 +0100
> > Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/24/20 13:25, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >>> If firmware negotiates ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT feature,
>
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 19:35:30 -0800
Ankur Arora wrote:
> On 2020-11-26 4:46 a.m., Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > On 11/26/20 11:24, Ankur Arora wrote:
> >> On 2020-11-24 4:25 a.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >>> If firmware negotiates ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT feature,
> >>> OSPM on CPU eject
On 2020-11-26 12:38 p.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 12:17:27 +0100
Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 11/24/20 13:25, Igor Mammedov wrote:
If firmware negotiates ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT feature,
OSPM on CPU eject will set bit #4 in CPU hotplug block for to be
ejected CPU to mark
On 2020-11-26 11:50 a.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 13:46:32 +0100
Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 11/26/20 11:24, Ankur Arora wrote:
On 2020-11-24 4:25 a.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
If firmware negotiates ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT feature,
OSPM on CPU eject will set bit #4 in
On 2020-11-26 4:46 a.m., Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 11/26/20 11:24, Ankur Arora wrote:
On 2020-11-24 4:25 a.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
If firmware negotiates ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT feature,
OSPM on CPU eject will set bit #4 in CPU hotplug block for to be
ejected CPU to mark it for removal
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 12:17:27 +0100
Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 11/24/20 13:25, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > If firmware negotiates ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT feature,
> > OSPM on CPU eject will set bit #4 in CPU hotplug block for to be
> > ejected CPU to mark it for removal by firmware and
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 02:24:27 -0800
Ankur Arora wrote:
> On 2020-11-24 4:25 a.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > If firmware negotiates ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT feature,
> > OSPM on CPU eject will set bit #4 in CPU hotplug block for to be
> > ejected CPU to mark it for removal by firmware and
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 13:46:32 +0100
Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 11/26/20 11:24, Ankur Arora wrote:
> > On 2020-11-24 4:25 a.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >> If firmware negotiates ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT feature,
> >> OSPM on CPU eject will set bit #4 in CPU hotplug block for to be
> >>
On 2020-11-24 4:25 a.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
If firmware negotiates ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT feature,
OSPM on CPU eject will set bit #4 in CPU hotplug block for to be
ejected CPU to mark it for removal by firmware and trigger SMI
upcall to let firmware do actual eject.
Signed-off-by:
On 11/26/20 11:24, Ankur Arora wrote:
> On 2020-11-24 4:25 a.m., Igor Mammedov wrote:
>> If firmware negotiates ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT feature,
>> OSPM on CPU eject will set bit #4 in CPU hotplug block for to be
>> ejected CPU to mark it for removal by firmware and trigger SMI
>> upcall
On 11/24/20 13:25, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> If firmware negotiates ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT feature,
> OSPM on CPU eject will set bit #4 in CPU hotplug block for to be
> ejected CPU to mark it for removal by firmware and trigger SMI
> upcall to let firmware do actual eject.
>
>
On 11/24/20 13:25, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> If firmware negotiates ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT feature,
> OSPM on CPU eject will set bit #4 in CPU hotplug block for to be
> ejected CPU to mark it for removal by firmware and trigger SMI
> upcall to let firmware do actual eject.
>
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
