Am 12.08.2014 um 01:36 schrieb Scott Wood [off-list ref]:
=20
quoted
On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 19:33 +0300, Mihai Caraman wrote:
@@ -390,19 +400,30 @@ static void kvmppc_core_vcpu_free_e500mc(struct kvm=
_vcpu *vcpu)
quoted
=20
static int kvmppc_core_init_vm_e500mc(struct kvm *kvm)
{
- int lpid;
+ int i, lpid;
=20
- lpid =3D kvmppc_alloc_lpid();
- if (lpid < 0)
- return lpid;
+ /* The lpid pool supports only 2 entries now */
+ if (threads_per_core > 2)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ /* Each VM allocates one LPID per HW thread index */
+ for (i =3D 0; i < threads_per_core; i++) {
+ lpid =3D kvmppc_alloc_lpid();
+ if (lpid < 0)
+ return lpid;
+
+ kvm->arch.lpid_pool[i] =3D lpid;
+ }
=20
Wouldn't it be simpler to halve the size of the lpid pool that the
allocator sees, and just OR in the high bit based on the low bit of the
cpu number?
Heh, I wrote the same and then removed the section from my reply again. It w=
ouldn't really make that much of a difference if you think it through comple=
tely.
But yes, it certainly would be quite a bit more natural. I'm ok either way.
Alex