[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170530102324.GA8563@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 15:53:24 +0530
From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Akshay Adiga <akshay.adiga@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] powernv:idle: Correctly initialize
core_idle_state_ptr
Hi Nicholas,
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:56:12PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 14:19:43 +0530
> "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > The lower 8 bits of core_idle_state_ptr tracks the number of non-idle
> > threads in the core. This is supposed to be initialized to bit-map
> > corresponding to the threads_per_core. However, currently it is
> > initialized to PNV_CORE_IDLE_THREAD_BITS (0xFF). This is correct for
> > POWER8 which has 8 threads per core, but not for POWER9 which has 4
> > threads per core.
> >
> > As a result, on POWER9, core_idle_state_ptr gets initialized to
> > 0xFF. In case when all the threads of the core are idle, the bits
> > corresponding tracking the idle-threads are non-zero. As a result, the
> > idle entry/exit code fails to save/restore per-core hypervisor state
> > since it assumes that there are threads in the cores which are still
> > active.
> >
> > Fix this by correctly initializing the lower bits of the
> > core_idle_state_ptr on the basis of threads_per_core.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> This looks good to me.
>
> Until this patch series, we can't enable HV state loss idle modes
> on POWER9, is that correct? And after your series does it work?
Yes, that is correct.
>
> Reviewed-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
>
Thanks for reviewing the patch!
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists