This is essentially the same as the 2.5.2 patch except that it adds support
for the new migration cross processor interrupt.
As far as the new scheduler goes, the process affinity properties are much
better for the voyager, which is configured to have a fairly huge L3 cache
shared by several CPUs. (My current voyager has 2 CPU cards with 4 pentium
CPUs each and 32Mb of L3 cache on each card).
The patch (157k) is available here
http://www.hansenpartnership.com/voyager/files/voyager-2.5.3.diff
If there's any interest from the other architecture groups, I can also put
together the incremental diff between 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 which shows what changes
needed to be made in the arch specific boot sequence and smp code for the new
scheduler.
James Bottomley
Hi!
> This is essentially the same as the 2.5.2 patch except that it adds support
> for the new migration cross processor interrupt.
>
> As far as the new scheduler goes, the process affinity properties are much
> better for the voyager, which is configured to have a fairly huge L3 cache
> shared by several CPUs. (My current voyager has 2 CPU cards with 4 pentium
> CPUs each and 32Mb of L3 cache on each card).
Maybe you should stop calling it new architecture? Its mostly
i386-compatible, right?
BTW are those "current" machines, or is their production already
stopped?
Pavel
--
(about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly. However, I really think that the U.S.
no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa
[email protected] said:
> Maybe you should stop calling it new architecture? Its mostly
> i386-compatible, right?
It's x86 based, and like all good x86 machines, it has a mode where it will
boot on a single CPU and look like a microchannel PC. However, the voyagers
were designed to be large multi-CPU SMP machines. For SMP, it is completely
incompatible with the APIC/IO-APIC architecture which linux supports, so the
voyager patches provide a completely different SMP HAL, which had to be
written from scratch; it's not merely a modification of the existing one.
> BTW are those "current" machines, or is their production already
> stopped?
I believe the last data centre machines (the 32 CPU 51xx series) rolled off
NCR's production lines in 2001, so it is pretty much an obsolete machine now.
James
Hi,
can you please explain, what does this config.in fragment mean:
if [ "$CONFIG_VISWS" != "y" ]; then
bool 'MCA support' CONFIG_MCA
if [ "$CONFIG_MCA" = "y" ]; then
bool ' Support for the NCR Voyager Architecture' CONFIG_VOYAGER
define_bool CONFIG_X86_TSC n
fi
else
define_bool CONFIG_MCA n
fi
How MCA and NCR Voyager support related to SGI Visual Workstations support
(CONFIG_VISWS) ?
Best regards.
--
Andrey Panin | Embedded systems software engineer
[email protected] | PGP key: wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:00:21PM +0300, Andrey Panin wrote:
> if [ "$CONFIG_VISWS" != "y" ]; then
> bool 'MCA support' CONFIG_MCA
> if [ "$CONFIG_MCA" = "y" ]; then
> bool ' Support for the NCR Voyager Architecture' CONFIG_VOYAGER
>
> How MCA and NCR Voyager support related to SGI Visual Workstations support
> (CONFIG_VISWS) ?
It is kinda horrible. What I parsed it as is VISWS and Voyager
are mutually exclusive, both have MCA available, but Voyager
is a 'must have' case.
icky.
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
> can you please explain, what does this config.in fragment mean:
>
> if [ "$CONFIG_VISWS" !=3D "y" ]; then
> bool 'MCA support' CONFIG_MCA
> if [ "$CONFIG_MCA" =3D "y" ]; then
> bool ' Support for the NCR Voyager Architecture' CONFIG_VOYAGER
> define_bool CONFIG_X86_TSC n
> fi
> else
> define_bool CONFIG_MCA n
> fi
>
> How MCA and NCR Voyager support related to SGI Visual Workstations support
> (CONFIG_VISWS) ?
Exactly as it says. If its a VISWS machine it can't be a voyager
If it hasn't got MCA bus it can't be a voyager
If it is a VISWS it doesnt have MCA
It's historical creep.
Initially the question about being Voyager was asked immediately below
CONFIG_MCA, which was then at the top level. Then that got wrapped by if !=
VISW, so it ends up looking like this.
How about:
if [ "$CONFIG_VISWS" != "y" ]; then
bool 'MCA support' CONFIG_MCA
else
define_bool CONFIG_MCA n
fi
if [ "$CONFIG_MCA" = "y" ]; then
bool ' Support for the NCR Voyager Architecture' CONFIG_VOYAGER
define_bool CONFIG_X86_TSC n
fi
Actually, this also exposes a bug, the last statement should be:
if [ "$CONFIG_MCA" = "y" ]; then
bool ' Support for the NCR Voyager Architecture' CONFIG_VOYAGER
if [ "$CONFIG_VOYAGER" = "y"]; then
define_bool CONFIG_X86_TSC n
fi
fi
Since MCA machines may use the pentium TSC but voyager may not.
James