[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/17] ppc: preparing pnv landing
From: |
David Gibson |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/17] ppc: preparing pnv landing |
Date: |
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:45:31 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) |
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:08:19AM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> On 03/16/2016 02:19 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 09:11:31AM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> >> On 03/15/2016 01:39 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 05:56:23PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a first mini-serie of patches adding support for new ppc SPRs.
> >>>> They were taken from Ben's larger patchset adding the ppc powernv
> >>>> platform and they should already be useful for the pseries guest
> >>>> migration.
> >>>>
> >>>> Initial patches come from :
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/ozbenh/qemu/commits/powernv
> >>>>
> >>>> The changes are mostly due to the rebase on Dave's 2.6 branch:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/dgibson/qemu/commits/ppc-for-2.6
> >>>>
> >>>> A couple more are bisect and checkpatch fixes and finally some patches
> >>>> were merge to reduce the noise.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The patchset is also available here:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/legoater/qemu/commits/for-2.6
> >>>>
> >>>> It was quickly tested with a pseries guest using KVM and TCG.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm.. do these all fix bugs with migration, or only some of them?
> >>
> >> Probably only some.
> >>
> >> Initially, Thomas gave a shorter list which I expanded to a larger one
> >> because of dependencies between patches and I didn't want to change too
> >> much what Ben had sent. You had also reviewed a few.
> >>
> >>> The relevance is that things to fix migration should go into 2.6, but
> >>> preparation work for powernv that doesn't fix bug shouldn't really be
> >>> going in now, after the soft freeze and will need to wait for 2.7.
> >>
> >> OK. I will rework and keep the rest for 2.7.
> >
> > So, I'm ok with including (low risk) patches that aren't directly
> > relevant to 2.6 if they're prereqs for patches that are relevant to
> > 2.6. After all, reworking the patches isn't risk free either. Please
> > mention why these patches are being included in the commit messages
> > though.
>
> Sure.
>
> >> Thomas, thanks for the review. I have identified a few things I need
> >> to work on but may be, the patchset is still too large for 2.6 ?
> >
> > It's not really a question of being too large, it's that I'm nervous
> > about applying patches which touch the core translation code
> > (e.g. fixes to HV mode tests) during soft freeze if they're not
> > addressing a bug that's relevant to 2.6.
>
> Could you please take a look at these two patches to see if they are
> relevant for 2.6 ? From my readings, they seem to be the only ones on
> the edge.
>
> 06/17 ppc: Create cpu_ppc_set_papr() helper
> 11/17 ppc: Initialize AMOR in PAPR mode
Ok, I've replied to each of those.
> but it makes sense to take them if we take :
>
> 12/17 ppc: Fix writing to AMR/UAMOR (move hunk to 13)
I'm not seeing a lot of cause to put this in for 2.6. The registers
in question are already linked up to KVM, so migration should be ok,
and I don't believe we have real use cases which are hitting the bugs
this patch fixes. Except...
> 13/17 ppc: Add POWER8 IAMR register (rework hunk)
..that I guess it's kind of a pre-req for this one, which could fix real
migration bugs.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/17] ppc: Add number of threads per core to the processor definition, (continued)
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/17] ppc: preparing pnv landing, David Gibson, 2016/03/14