From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753202AbcHPAup (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 15 Aug 2016 20:50:45 -0400
Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.143]:37817 "EHLO
	ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753175AbcHPAun (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 15 Aug 2016 20:50:43 -0400
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2DLAQBSYrJXfQpSY3peij22HoYdAoIMEAIBAQEBAQEBEwEBFisvhF8BBTo/BQsLIRUQDwFHiEm+dIp3ihsFmUCPfoEEjViGZIlLNYQrKoddAQEB
From: Alistair Popple <alistair@popple.id.au>
To: bsingharora@gmail.com
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, stewart@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/powernv: Initialise nest mmu
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:37:58 +1000
Message-ID: <1989530.M5axb7bib9@new-mexico>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.1 (Linux/4.2.0-0.bpo.1-amd64; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20160815072240.GA21080@balbir.ozlabs.ibm.com>
References: <1471243919-18362-1-git-send-email-alistair@popple.id.au> <20160815072240.GA21080@balbir.ozlabs.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Balbir,

<snip>
 
> > +	/* Update partition table control register on all Nest MMUs */
> > +	opal_nmmu_set_ptcr(-1UL, __pa(partition_tb) | (PATB_SIZE_SHIFT - 12));
> > +
> 
> Just wondering if
> 
> 1. Instead of using -1 for all cpus, we should do
> 	for_each_online_cpu() {
> 		opal_numm_set_ptcr(...)
> 	}

Good question, but I don't think it makes sense to do that. The NMMU is
per-chip/socket rather than per-cpu so it shouldn't be tied to
onlining/offlining of individual CPUs.

> 2. In cpu hotplug path do the same when onlining and set to NULL on
> offlining?

Again, the nmmu isn't tied to a specific CPU but rather a chip/socket. So in
theory at least it's possible that all CPUs in a chip could be offline but
other units on the chip could still be using the nmmu so we wouldn't want to
disable the nmmu at that point.

> I think we should definitely try and become hotplug aware from the OS
> view point and drive it from the OS
> 
> What do you think?
>
> Balbir Singh.