From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To: Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] powerpc32: provide VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:29:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56C49FD3.8060108@c-s.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1455657664.2463.68.camel@buserror.net>
Le 16/02/2016 22:21, Scott Wood a écrit :
> On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 17:16 +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> This patch provides VIRT_CPU_ACCOUTING to PPC32 architecture.
>> PPC32 doesn't have the PACA structure, so we use the task_info
>> structure to store the accounting data.
>>
>> In order to reuse on PPC32 the PPC64 functions, all u64 data has
>> been replaced by 'unsigned long' so that it is u32 on PPC32 and
>> u64 on PPC64
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
>> ---
>> Changes in v3: unlike previous version of the patch that was inspired
>> from IA64 architecture, this new version tries to reuse as much as
>> possible the PPC64 implementation.
>>
>> PPC32 doesn't have PACA and past discusion on v2 version has shown
>> that it is not worth implementing a PACA in PPC32 architecture
>> (see below benh opinion)
>>
>> benh: PACA is actually a data structure and you really really don't want it
>> on ppc32 :-) Having a register point to current works, having a register
>> point to per-cpu data instead works too (ie, change what we do today),
>> but don't introduce a PACA *please* :-)
> And Ben never replied to my reply at the time:
>
> "What is special about 64-bit that warrants doing things differently from 32
> -bit? What is the difference between PACA and "per-cpu data", other than the
> obscure name?"
>
> I can understand wanting to avoid churn, but other than that, doing things
> differently on 64-bit versus 32-bit sucks.
>
What I can see is that PACA is always available via register r13. Do we
have anything equivalent on PPC32 ?
If we define a per-cpu data for accounting, what will be the quick way
to get access to it in entry_32.S ?
Something like a table of accounting data for each CPU, that we index
with thread_info->cpu ?
This would allow a quite quick access, is it the good way to proceed in
order to have something closer to PPC64 ?
Christophe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-17 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-11 16:16 [PATCH v5] powerpc32: provide VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING Christophe Leroy
2016-02-12 8:25 ` Denis Kirjanov
2016-02-14 20:40 ` Denis Kirjanov
2016-02-15 9:33 ` Christophe Leroy
2016-02-16 21:21 ` Scott Wood
2016-02-17 16:29 ` Christophe Leroy [this message]
2016-02-23 1:22 ` Scott Wood
2016-02-23 2:04 ` Michael Ellerman
2016-02-23 2:15 ` Scott Wood
2016-02-23 3:25 ` Michael Ellerman
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=56C49FD3.8060108@c-s.fr \
--to=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=oss@buserror.net \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).