On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 19:08 +0800, Chenhui Zhao wrote:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 17:20 +0800, b29983@freescale.comwrote:
> > + /*
> > + * If both threads are offline, reset core to
start.
> > + * When core is up, Thread 0 always gets up
first,
> > + * so bind the current logical cpu with Thread 0.
> > + */
> > + if (hw_cpu != cpu_first_thread_sibling(hw_cpu)) {
> > + int hw_cpu1, hw_cpu2;
> > +
> > + hw_cpu1 =
get_hard_smp_processor_id(primary);
> > + hw_cpu2 =
get_hard_smp_processor_id(primary +
> > 1);
> > + set_hard_smp_processor_id(primary,
hw_cpu2);
> > + set_hard_smp_processor_id(primary + 1,
> > hw_cpu1);
> > + /* get new physical cpu id */
> > + hw_cpu = get_hard_smp_processor_id(nr);
>
> NACK as discussed in http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/454944/
>
> -Scott
You said,
There's no need for this. I have booting from a thread1, and
having
it
kick its thread0, working locally without messing with the
hwid/cpu
mapping.
I still have questions here. After a core reset, how can you boot
Thread1
of the core first. As I know, Thread0 boots up first by default.
So the issue isn't that thread1 comes up first, but that you *want*
thread1
to come up first and it won't. I don't think this remapping is an
acceptable
answer, though. Instead, if you need only thread1 to come up, start
the
core, have thread0 start thread1, and then send thread0 into whatever
waiting
state it would be in if thread1 had never been offlined.
-Scott
Remapping is a concise solution. what's the harm of it?
Keeping things simple is good in my opinion.
-Chenhui
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
