From: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@austin.ibm.com>
To: svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>, Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: ONLINE to OFFLINE CPU state transition during removal
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:13:35 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C4DDE5F.7090207@austin.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100723041309.GB4728@dirshya.in.ibm.com>
On 07/22/2010 11:13 PM, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> * Robert Jennings <rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2010-07-22 21:43:44]:
>
>> If a CPU remove is attempted using the 'release' interface on hardware
>> which supports extended cede, the CPU will be put in the INACTIVE state
>> rather than the OFFLINE state due to the default preferred_offline_state
>> in that situation. In the INACTIVE state it will fail to be removed.
>>
>> This patch changes the preferred offline state to OFFLINE when an CPU is
>> in the ONLINE state. After cpu_down() is called in dlpar_offline_cpu()
>> the CPU will be OFFLINE and CPU removal can continue.
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> Thanks for the patch. In dlpar operation, we would offline the CPU
> first using the sysfs online file and then write to the sysfs release
> file to complete the sequence right? The current code in
> dlpar_offline_cpu() would work as long as the cpu is in either
> inactive state or offline state (in case of unsupported platform).
>
> Is the dlpar tools being changed to complete the operation with one
> sysfs write to release file?
The dlpar tools were updated so that a single write to the 'release' file
would offline the cpu and remove it from the system. Given this, I think
Robert's patch should go forward to maintain compatability.
-Nathan
>
>> Signed-off-by: Robert Jennings <rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c
>> index d71e585..227c1c3 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c
>> @@ -463,6 +463,7 @@ static int dlpar_offline_cpu(struct device_node *dn)
>> break;
>>
>> if (get_cpu_current_state(cpu) == CPU_STATE_ONLINE) {
>> + set_preferred_offline_state(cpu, CPU_STATE_OFFLINE);
>> cpu_maps_update_done();
>> rc = cpu_down(cpu);
>> if (rc)
>
> The patch looks good. Will need to test out the various scenarios so
> that the preferred_offline_state do not get flipped before cpu_down()
> is called. This is unlikely, but still we need to validate
> a concurrent sysfs online file write and sysfs release file write.
>
> --Vaidy
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-26 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-23 2:43 [PATCH] powerpc: ONLINE to OFFLINE CPU state transition during removal Robert Jennings
2010-07-23 4:13 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-07-26 19:13 ` Nathan Fontenot [this message]
2010-08-05 13:31 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4C4DDE5F.7090207@austin.ibm.com \
--to=nfont@austin.ibm.com \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=julia@diku.dk \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.