From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, hpa <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: x86: unify genapic code, unify subarchitectures, remove old subarchitecture code
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:16:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1234102566.4244.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
> I ported the NUMAQ / Summit / bigsmp and ES7000 subarchitectures to the
> new setup. They build and boot on regular hardware but are otherwise
> untested. The x86/Voyager subarch is not fully ported yet (i cleaned up
> its Kconfig impact) and hence disabled it for the time being. It
> ought to be relatively straightforward to port it to the new code.
OK, so I analysed the voyager requirements.
The first simple one is that safe_smp_processor_id() and
hard_smp_processor_id() need to be abstracted, probably through smp_ops.
This one is probably trivial since 99% of the price of doing this has
already been paid in the smp ops.
The other big problem is mm/tlb.c. This directly uses genapic with 8
vectors which is impossible for voyager: the QIC only has 8 separate IPI
vectors for everything. The two alternatives which spring to mind are
either to rebase mm/tlb.c on top of smp_call_function. This would add a
small amount to the critical path, but would also allow vector scaling
beyond the current 8 IPI vectors to a per processor number (i.e. might
scale better beyond 8 cores). Or to keep voyager separate and move
pieces of paravirt ops (or rather a separated piece of pv_ops) into
smp_ops to effect the separation. Instinct says to try the former
first.
James
next reply other threads:[~2009-02-08 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-08 14:16 James Bottomley [this message]
2009-02-08 16:56 ` x86: unify genapic code, unify subarchitectures, remove old subarchitecture code Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-15 17:41 ` James Bottomley
2009-02-15 22:48 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-02-22 23:25 ` Ingo Molnar
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-01-28 23:41 Ingo Molnar
2009-01-29 1:52 ` Suresh Siddha
2009-01-29 11:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-29 20:11 ` Suresh Siddha
2009-01-29 20:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-29 14:02 ` Andi Kleen
2009-01-29 20:36 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-01-29 21:04 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-01-29 21:24 ` Tim Pepper
2009-01-29 22:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-29 22:19 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2009-01-29 22:58 ` Tim Pepper
2009-01-29 23:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-30 9:01 ` Andi Kleen
2009-01-29 22:29 ` Ingo Molnar
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=1234102566.4244.7.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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