This patch adds support for numa topology on powernv platforms running
OPAL formware. It checks for the type of platform at run time and
sets the affinity form correctly so that NUMA topology can be discovered
correctly.
Signed-off-by: Dipankar Sarma dipan...@in.ibm.com
---
arch/powerpc/mm
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:20:06PM +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
* Dipankar Sarma dipan...@in.ibm.com [2010-03-06 00:48:11]:
Shouldn't we create this only for supported platforms ?
Hi Dipankar,
Yes we will need a check like
firmware_has_feature(FW_FEATURE_BEST_ENERGY) to avoid
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:48:22PM +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
static void __init cpu_init_thread_core_maps(int tpc)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/Kconfig
index c667f0f..b3dd108 100644
---
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 02:11:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 17:36 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
This patchset contains the offline state driver implemented for
pSeries. For pSeries, we define three available_hotplug_states. They are:
online: The
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 05:32:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 20:58 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 02:11:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 17:36 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
This patchset contains the offline state
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 07:22:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 22:33 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl [2009-09-16 18:35:16]:
Now if you were to try and online the cpus in the guest, it'd fail
because the cpus aren't
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:53:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 01:14 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Agreed, I've tried to come with a little ASCII art to depict your
scenairos graphically
++ don't need (offline)
| OS
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 09:15:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 11:54 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
For most parts, we do. The guest kernel doesn't manage the offline
CPU state. That is typically done by the hypervisor. However, offline
operation as defined now always
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 01:28:15PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 09:15:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 11:54 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
For most parts, we do. The guest kernel doesn't manage the offline
CPU state. That is typically done
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 01:58:06PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
May be having (to pick a number) 3 possible offline states for all
platforms with one for halt equivalent and one for deepest possible that
CPU can handle and one for deepest possible that platform likes for
C-states may
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 08:45:18PM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
In a native system, I think we should the platform-specific code
export what makes sense. That may be just the lowest possible
state only. Or may be more than one.
For x86, it is 1 state
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 05:22:17PM -0700, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
Also, I don't think using just the ACPI/BIOS supplied states in _CST is
right thing to do for offline. _CST is meant for C-state and BIOS may
not include some C-state in _CST if the system manufacturer thinks that
the
12 matches
Mail list logo
