Re: [PATCH v6 18/42] powerpc/powernv: Allocate PE# in deasending order

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 08/11/2015 10:43 AM, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:39:02AM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 08/06/2015 02:11 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
The available PE#, represented by a bitmap in the PHB, is allocated
in ascending order.

Available PE# is available exactly because it is not allocated ;)


Yeah, will correct it.

It conflicts with the fact that M64 segments are
assigned in same order. In order to avoid the conflict, the patch
allocates PE# in descending order.

What kind of conflict?


On PHB3, the M64 segment is assigned to one PE whose PE number is
determined. M64 segment are allocated in ascending order. It's why
I would like to allocate PE# in deascending order.


From previous lessons, I thought M64 segment number is PE# number as well :-/
Seems this is not the case, so what does store this seg#<->PE# mapping in PHB?




Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c | 11 ++++++++---
  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
index 56b058c..1c950e8 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c
@@ -161,13 +161,18 @@ static struct pnv_ioda_pe *pnv_ioda_reserve_pe(struct pnv_phb *phb, int pe_no)
  static struct pnv_ioda_pe *pnv_ioda_alloc_pe(struct pnv_phb *phb)
  {
  	unsigned long pe;
+	unsigned long limit = phb->ioda.total_pe_num - 1;

  	do {
  		pe = find_next_zero_bit(phb->ioda.pe_alloc,
-					phb->ioda.total_pe_num, 0);
-		if (pe >= phb->ioda.total_pe_num)
+					phb->ioda.total_pe_num, limit);
+		if (pe < phb->ioda.total_pe_num &&
+		    !test_and_set_bit(pe, phb->ioda.pe_alloc))
+			break;
+
+		if (--limit >= phb->ioda.total_pe_num)
  			return NULL;
-	} while(test_and_set_bit(pe, phb->ioda.pe_alloc));
+	} while (1);


Usually, if it is "while(1)", then it is "while(1){}" rather than
"do{}while(1)" :)

Agree, will change it.




  	return pnv_ioda_init_pe(phb, pe);
  }


Thanks,
Gavin



--
Alexey
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux