From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55DBD1A007D for ; Fri, 23 May 2014 19:53:24 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <537F1A8D.9000704@suse.de> Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 11:53:17 +0200 From: Alexander Graf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Neuling , Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Implement split core for POWER8 References: <1400832930-17050-1-git-send-email-mikey@neuling.org> In-Reply-To: <1400832930-17050-1-git-send-email-mikey@neuling.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 23.05.14 10:15, Michael Neuling wrote: > This patch series implements split core mode on POWER8. This enables up to 4 > subcores per core which can each independently run guests (per guest SPRs like > SDR1, LPIDR etc are replicated per subcore). Lots more documentation on this > feature in the code and commit messages. > > Most of this code is in the powernv platform but there's a couple of KVM > specific patches too. > > Patch series authored by mpe and me with a few bug fixes from others. > > v2: > There are some minor updates based on comments and I've added the Acks by > Paulus and Alex for the KVM code. I don't see changelogs inside the individual patches. Please make sure to always mention what changed from one version to the next in a particular patch, so that I have the chance to check whether that change was good :). Also, is there any performance penalty associated with split core mode? If not, could we just always default to split-by-4 on POWER8 bare metal? Alex