Patchwork Display processor virtualization resource allocations in lparcfg

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Nathan Fontenot
Date May 26, 2009, 5:59 p.m.
Message ID <4A1C2E10.9020109@austin.ibm.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/27667/
State Superseded
Headers show

Comments

Nathan Fontenot - May 26, 2009, 5:59 p.m.
This patch updates the output from /proc/ppc64/lparcfg to display the
processor virtualization resource allocations for a shared processor
partition.

This information is already gathered via the h_get_ppp call, we just
have to make sure that the ibm,partition-performance-parameters-level
property is >= 1 to ensure that the information is valid.

Signed-off-by: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@austin.ibm.com>
---
Michael Ellerman - May 27, 2009, 1:14 a.m.
On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 12:59 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> This patch updates the output from /proc/ppc64/lparcfg to display the
> processor virtualization resource allocations for a shared processor
> partition.

> @@ -267,6 +281,28 @@
>  	seq_printf(m, "capped=%d\n", ppp_data.capped);
>  	seq_printf(m, "unallocated_capacity=%lld\n",
>  		   ppp_data.unallocated_entitlement);
> +
> +	/* The last bits of information returned from h_get_ppp are only
> +	 * valid if the ibm,partition-performance-parameters-level
> +	 * property is >= 1.
> +	 */
> +	root = of_find_node_by_path("/");
> +	if (root) {
> +		perf_level = of_get_property(root,
> +				"ibm,partition-performance-parameters-level",
> +					     NULL);

What if there is no such property?

> +		if (*perf_level >= 1) {
> +			seq_printf(m,
> +			    "physical_procs_allocated_to_virtualization=%d\n",
> +				   ppp_data.phys_platform_procs);
> +			seq_printf(m, "max_proc_capacity_available=%d\n",
> +				   ppp_data.max_proc_cap_avail);
> +			seq_printf(m, "entitled_proc_capacity_available=%d\n",
> +				   ppp_data.entitled_proc_cap_avail);
> +		}
> +
> +		of_node_put(root);
> +	}

cheers
Nathan Fontenot - May 27, 2009, 2:30 p.m.
Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> +	root = of_find_node_by_path("/");
>> +	if (root) {
>> +		perf_level = of_get_property(root,
>> +				"ibm,partition-performance-parameters-level",
>> +					     NULL);
> 
> What if there is no such property?

Yes, that would cause this code to do some bad things.  Updated patch on its way.

> 
>> +		if (*perf_level >= 1) {
>> +			seq_printf(m,
>> +			    "physical_procs_allocated_to_virtualization=%d\n",
>> +				   ppp_data.phys_platform_procs);
>> +			seq_printf(m, "max_proc_capacity_available=%d\n",
>> +				   ppp_data.max_proc_cap_avail);
>> +			seq_printf(m, "entitled_proc_capacity_available=%d\n",
>> +				   ppp_data.entitled_proc_cap_avail);
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		of_node_put(root);
>> +	}
> 
> cheers

-Nathan

Patch

Index: linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/kernel/lparcfg.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/lparcfg.c	2009-05-21 10:24:57.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/kernel/lparcfg.c	2009-05-26 11:06:59.000000000 -0500
@@ -169,6 +169,9 @@ 
 	u8	unallocated_weight;
 	u16	active_procs_in_pool;
 	u16	active_system_procs;
+	u16	phys_platform_procs;
+	u32	max_proc_cap_avail;
+	u32	entitled_proc_cap_avail;
 };
 
 /*
@@ -190,13 +193,18 @@ 
  *            XX - Unallocated Variable Processor Capacity Weight.
  *              XXXX - Active processors in Physical Processor Pool.
  *                  XXXX  - Processors active on platform.
+ *  R8 (QQQQRRRRRRSSSSSS). if ibm,partition-performance-parameters-level >= 1
+ *	XXXX - Physical platform procs allocated to virtualization.
+ *	    XXXXXX - Max procs capacity % available to the partitions pool.
+ *	          XXXXXX - Entitled procs capacity % available to the
+ *			   partitions pool.
  */
 static unsigned int h_get_ppp(struct hvcall_ppp_data *ppp_data)
 {
 	unsigned long rc;
-	unsigned long retbuf[PLPAR_HCALL_BUFSIZE];
+	unsigned long retbuf[PLPAR_HCALL9_BUFSIZE];
 
-	rc = plpar_hcall(H_GET_PPP, retbuf);
+	rc = plpar_hcall9(H_GET_PPP, retbuf);
 
 	ppp_data->entitlement = retbuf[0];
 	ppp_data->unallocated_entitlement = retbuf[1];
@@ -210,6 +218,10 @@ 
 	ppp_data->active_procs_in_pool = (retbuf[3] >> 2 * 8) & 0xffff;
 	ppp_data->active_system_procs = retbuf[3] & 0xffff;
 
+	ppp_data->phys_platform_procs = retbuf[4] >> 6 * 8;
+	ppp_data->max_proc_cap_avail = (retbuf[4] >> 3 * 8) & 0xffffff;
+	ppp_data->entitled_proc_cap_avail = retbuf[4] & 0xffffff;
+
 	return rc;
 }
 
@@ -234,6 +246,8 @@ 
 static void parse_ppp_data(struct seq_file *m)
 {
 	struct hvcall_ppp_data ppp_data;
+	struct device_node *root;
+	const int *perf_level;
 	int rc;
 
 	rc = h_get_ppp(&ppp_data);
@@ -267,6 +281,28 @@ 
 	seq_printf(m, "capped=%d\n", ppp_data.capped);
 	seq_printf(m, "unallocated_capacity=%lld\n",
 		   ppp_data.unallocated_entitlement);
+
+	/* The last bits of information returned from h_get_ppp are only
+	 * valid if the ibm,partition-performance-parameters-level
+	 * property is >= 1.
+	 */
+	root = of_find_node_by_path("/");
+	if (root) {
+		perf_level = of_get_property(root,
+				"ibm,partition-performance-parameters-level",
+					     NULL);
+		if (*perf_level >= 1) {
+			seq_printf(m,
+			    "physical_procs_allocated_to_virtualization=%d\n",
+				   ppp_data.phys_platform_procs);
+			seq_printf(m, "max_proc_capacity_available=%d\n",
+				   ppp_data.max_proc_cap_avail);
+			seq_printf(m, "entitled_proc_capacity_available=%d\n",
+				   ppp_data.entitled_proc_cap_avail);
+		}
+
+		of_node_put(root);
+	}
 }
 
 /**