This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


RE: [Xen-devel] c/s 18470

To: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] c/s 18470
From: "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:19:51 +0800
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 03:20:17 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <48D22C30.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <48D0D138.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx> <48D0FC07.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx> <9D7649D18729DE4BB2BD7B494F7FEDC201D4637E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48D22C30.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AckZZ8mR2fS1JFRgRoyNCbIXw6L+0wADxqEg
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] c/s 18470
Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> 18.09.08 09:39 >>>
>> Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Likewise the calls to cpufreq_{add,del}_cpu() from the CPU
>>> hot(un)plug paths seem to consider the Intel case only (as the
>>> functions themselves are Intel specific).
>> [Jinsong]:
>>  Not quite sure about your question. I just check the code:
>>  1. cpufreq_add/del_cpu() is arch-independent, since all
>> arch-dependent part has been handled by cpufreq_driver->init/exit().
>>  2. cpu online/offline path is also arch-independent.
>>  Would you please tell me more clear where is intel specific?
> In that platform_hypercall.c calls cpufreq_add_cpu() only for Intel
> CPUs, but the hotplug code calls it and cpufreq_del_cpu() always.
> This ought to be consistent I believe.

Thanks for pointing out this point!
Yes, currently Intel and AMD differ at cpufreq init point, and they are
not consistent.
However, after we complete cpufreq rebase and IPF support, AMD powernow
can also stop using their init method, and using our common code
cpufreq_add_cpu() and cpufreq_del_cpu() since the code is
arch-independent. At that time, both Intel and AMD cpufreq init and
online/offline logic are consistent.


> Jan

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>