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$(echo .)ibm.com \
--cc=ego@in$(echo .)ibm.com \
--cc=julia@diku$(echo .)dk \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists$(echo .)ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba$(echo .)org \
--cc=svaidy@linux$(echo .)vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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