From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e31.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2151B70EE for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 00:20:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p12D5Jod005335 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 06:05:19 -0700 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p12DJoou118332 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 06:19:50 -0700 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p12DJokl001789 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 06:19:50 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/6] powerpc/44x: don't use tlbivax on AMP systems From: Dave Kleikamp To: Kumar Gala In-Reply-To: <85A99D1E-9B32-4816-91FD-355B325D3F8F@kernel.crashing.org> References: <1296586126-32765-1-git-send-email-shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1296586126-32765-5-git-send-email-shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <85A99D1E-9B32-4816-91FD-355B325D3F8F@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 07:19:48 -0600 Message-ID: <1296652788.12290.5.camel@shaggy-w500> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 01:48 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > > Since other OS's may be running on the other cores don't use tlbivax > > Are you guys building SMP kernel for use with AMP? Just wondering why you'd be using tlbivax at all. Yes, for instance, a 4-core chip could run two 2-way instances. Shaggy -- Dave Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center