aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Documentation
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation')
-rw-r--r--Documentation/arm/cluster-pm-race-avoidance.txt498
-rw-r--r--Documentation/arm/vlocks.txt211
-rw-r--r--Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/pmu.txt3
-rw-r--r--Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt9
4 files changed, 721 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/arm/cluster-pm-race-avoidance.txt b/Documentation/arm/cluster-pm-race-avoidance.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..750b6fc24af
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/arm/cluster-pm-race-avoidance.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,498 @@
+Cluster-wide Power-up/power-down race avoidance algorithm
+=========================================================
+
+This file documents the algorithm which is used to coordinate CPU and
+cluster setup and teardown operations and to manage hardware coherency
+controls safely.
+
+The section "Rationale" explains what the algorithm is for and why it is
+needed. "Basic model" explains general concepts using a simplified view
+of the system. The other sections explain the actual details of the
+algorithm in use.
+
+
+Rationale
+---------
+
+In a system containing multiple CPUs, it is desirable to have the
+ability to turn off individual CPUs when the system is idle, reducing
+power consumption and thermal dissipation.
+
+In a system containing multiple clusters of CPUs, it is also desirable
+to have the ability to turn off entire clusters.
+
+Turning entire clusters off and on is a risky business, because it
+involves performing potentially destructive operations affecting a group
+of independently running CPUs, while the OS continues to run. This
+means that we need some coordination in order to ensure that critical
+cluster-level operations are only performed when it is truly safe to do
+so.
+
+Simple locking may not be sufficient to solve this problem, because
+mechanisms like Linux spinlocks may rely on coherency mechanisms which
+are not immediately enabled when a cluster powers up. Since enabling or
+disabling those mechanisms may itself be a non-atomic operation (such as
+writing some hardware registers and invalidating large caches), other
+methods of coordination are required in order to guarantee safe
+power-down and power-up at the cluster level.
+
+The mechanism presented in this document describes a coherent memory
+based protocol for performing the needed coordination. It aims to be as
+lightweight as possible, while providing the required safety properties.
+
+
+Basic model
+-----------
+
+Each cluster and CPU is assigned a state, as follows:
+
+ DOWN
+ COMING_UP
+ UP
+ GOING_DOWN
+
+ +---------> UP ----------+
+ | v
+
+ COMING_UP GOING_DOWN
+
+ ^ |
+ +--------- DOWN <--------+
+
+
+DOWN: The CPU or cluster is not coherent, and is either powered off or
+ suspended, or is ready to be powered off or suspended.
+
+COMING_UP: The CPU or cluster has committed to moving to the UP state.
+ It may be part way through the process of initialisation and
+ enabling coherency.
+
+UP: The CPU or cluster is active and coherent at the hardware
+ level. A CPU in this state is not necessarily being used
+ actively by the kernel.
+
+GOING_DOWN: The CPU or cluster has committed to moving to the DOWN
+ state. It may be part way through the process of teardown and
+ coherency exit.
+
+
+Each CPU has one of these states assigned to it at any point in time.
+The CPU states are described in the "CPU state" section, below.
+
+Each cluster is also assigned a state, but it is necessary to split the
+state value into two parts (the "cluster" state and "inbound" state) and
+to introduce additional states in order to avoid races between different
+CPUs in the cluster simultaneously modifying the state. The cluster-
+level states are described in the "Cluster state" section.
+
+To help distinguish the CPU states from cluster states in this
+discussion, the state names are given a CPU_ prefix for the CPU states,
+and a CLUSTER_ or INBOUND_ prefix for the cluster states.
+
+
+CPU state
+---------
+
+In this algorithm, each individual core in a multi-core processor is
+referred to as a "CPU". CPUs are assumed to be single-threaded:
+therefore, a CPU can only be doing one thing at a single point in time.
+
+This means that CPUs fit the basic model closely.
+
+The algorithm defines the following states for each CPU in the system:
+
+ CPU_DOWN
+ CPU_COMING_UP
+ CPU_UP
+ CPU_GOING_DOWN
+
+ cluster setup and
+ CPU setup complete policy decision
+ +-----------> CPU_UP ------------+
+ | v
+
+ CPU_COMING_UP CPU_GOING_DOWN
+
+ ^ |
+ +----------- CPU_DOWN <----------+
+ policy decision CPU teardown complete
+ or hardware event
+
+
+The definitions of the four states correspond closely to the states of
+the basic model.
+
+Transitions between states occur as follows.
+
+A trigger event (spontaneous) means that the CPU can transition to the
+next state as a result of making local progress only, with no
+requirement for any external event to happen.
+
+
+CPU_DOWN:
+
+ A CPU reaches the CPU_DOWN state when it is ready for
+ power-down. On reaching this state, the CPU will typically
+ power itself down or suspend itself, via a WFI instruction or a
+ firmware call.
+
+ Next state: CPU_COMING_UP
+ Conditions: none
+
+ Trigger events:
+
+ a) an explicit hardware power-up operation, resulting
+ from a policy decision on another CPU;
+
+ b) a hardware event, such as an interrupt.
+
+
+CPU_COMING_UP:
+
+ A CPU cannot start participating in hardware coherency until the
+ cluster is set up and coherent. If the cluster is not ready,
+ then the CPU will wait in the CPU_COMING_UP state until the
+ cluster has been set up.
+
+ Next state: CPU_UP
+ Conditions: The CPU's parent cluster must be in CLUSTER_UP.
+ Trigger events: Transition of the parent cluster to CLUSTER_UP.
+
+ Refer to the "Cluster state" section for a description of the
+ CLUSTER_UP state.
+
+
+CPU_UP:
+ When a CPU reaches the CPU_UP state, it is safe for the CPU to
+ start participating in local coherency.
+
+ This is done by jumping to the kernel's CPU resume code.
+
+ Note that the definition of this state is slightly different
+ from the basic model definition: CPU_UP does not mean that the
+ CPU is coherent yet, but it does mean that it is safe to resume
+ the kernel. The kernel handles the rest of the resume
+ procedure, so the remaining steps are not visible as part of the
+ race avoidance algorithm.
+
+ The CPU remains in this state until an explicit policy decision
+ is made to shut down or suspend the CPU.
+
+ Next state: CPU_GOING_DOWN
+ Conditions: none
+ Trigger events: explicit policy decision
+
+
+CPU_GOING_DOWN:
+
+ While in this state, the CPU exits coherency, including any
+ operations required to achieve this (such as cleaning data
+ caches).
+
+ Next state: CPU_DOWN
+ Conditions: local CPU teardown complete
+ Trigger events: (spontaneous)
+
+
+Cluster state
+-------------
+
+A cluster is a group of connected CPUs with some common resources.
+Because a cluster contains multiple CPUs, it can be doing multiple
+things at the same time. This has some implications. In particular, a
+CPU can start up while another CPU is tearing the cluster down.
+
+In this discussion, the "outbound side" is the view of the cluster state
+as seen by a CPU tearing the cluster down. The "inbound side" is the
+view of the cluster state as seen by a CPU setting the CPU up.
+
+In order to enable safe coordination in such situations, it is important
+that a CPU which is setting up the cluster can advertise its state
+independently of the CPU which is tearing down the cluster. For this
+reason, the cluster state is split into two parts:
+
+ "cluster" state: The global state of the cluster; or the state
+ on the outbound side:
+
+ CLUSTER_DOWN
+ CLUSTER_UP
+ CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN
+
+ "inbound" state: The state of the cluster on the inbound side.
+
+ INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP
+ INBOUND_COMING_UP
+
+
+ The different pairings of these states results in six possible
+ states for the cluster as a whole:
+
+ CLUSTER_UP
+ +==========> INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP -------------+
+ # |
+ |
+ CLUSTER_UP <----+ |
+ INBOUND_COMING_UP | v
+
+ ^ CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN
+ # INBOUND_COMING_UP <=== INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP
+
+ CLUSTER_DOWN | |
+ INBOUND_COMING_UP <----+ |
+ |
+ ^ |
+ +=========== CLUSTER_DOWN <------------+
+ INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP
+
+ Transitions -----> can only be made by the outbound CPU, and
+ only involve changes to the "cluster" state.
+
+ Transitions ===##> can only be made by the inbound CPU, and only
+ involve changes to the "inbound" state, except where there is no
+ further transition possible on the outbound side (i.e., the
+ outbound CPU has put the cluster into the CLUSTER_DOWN state).
+
+ The race avoidance algorithm does not provide a way to determine
+ which exact CPUs within the cluster play these roles. This must
+ be decided in advance by some other means. Refer to the section
+ "Last man and first man selection" for more explanation.
+
+
+ CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP is the only state where the
+ cluster can actually be powered down.
+
+ The parallelism of the inbound and outbound CPUs is observed by
+ the existence of two different paths from CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/
+ INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP (corresponding to GOING_DOWN in the basic
+ model) to CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP (corresponding to
+ COMING_UP in the basic model). The second path avoids cluster
+ teardown completely.
+
+ CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_COMING_UP is equivalent to UP in the basic
+ model. The final transition to CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP
+ is trivial and merely resets the state machine ready for the
+ next cycle.
+
+ Details of the allowable transitions follow.
+
+ The next state in each case is notated
+
+ <cluster state>/<inbound state> (<transitioner>)
+
+ where the <transitioner> is the side on which the transition
+ can occur; either the inbound or the outbound side.
+
+
+CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP:
+
+ Next state: CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP (inbound)
+ Conditions: none
+ Trigger events:
+
+ a) an explicit hardware power-up operation, resulting
+ from a policy decision on another CPU;
+
+ b) a hardware event, such as an interrupt.
+
+
+CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP:
+
+ In this state, an inbound CPU sets up the cluster, including
+ enabling of hardware coherency at the cluster level and any
+ other operations (such as cache invalidation) which are required
+ in order to achieve this.
+
+ The purpose of this state is to do sufficient cluster-level
+ setup to enable other CPUs in the cluster to enter coherency
+ safely.
+
+ Next state: CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_COMING_UP (inbound)
+ Conditions: cluster-level setup and hardware coherency complete
+ Trigger events: (spontaneous)
+
+
+CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_COMING_UP:
+
+ Cluster-level setup is complete and hardware coherency is
+ enabled for the cluster. Other CPUs in the cluster can safely
+ enter coherency.
+
+ This is a transient state, leading immediately to
+ CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP. All other CPUs on the cluster
+ should consider treat these two states as equivalent.
+
+ Next state: CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP (inbound)
+ Conditions: none
+ Trigger events: (spontaneous)
+
+
+CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP:
+
+ Cluster-level setup is complete and hardware coherency is
+ enabled for the cluster. Other CPUs in the cluster can safely
+ enter coherency.
+
+ The cluster will remain in this state until a policy decision is
+ made to power the cluster down.
+
+ Next state: CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP (outbound)
+ Conditions: none
+ Trigger events: policy decision to power down the cluster
+
+
+CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP:
+
+ An outbound CPU is tearing the cluster down. The selected CPU
+ must wait in this state until all CPUs in the cluster are in the
+ CPU_DOWN state.
+
+ When all CPUs are in the CPU_DOWN state, the cluster can be torn
+ down, for example by cleaning data caches and exiting
+ cluster-level coherency.
+
+ To avoid wasteful unnecessary teardown operations, the outbound
+ should check the inbound cluster state for asynchronous
+ transitions to INBOUND_COMING_UP. Alternatively, individual
+ CPUs can be checked for entry into CPU_COMING_UP or CPU_UP.
+
+
+ Next states:
+
+ CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_NOT_COMING_UP (outbound)
+ Conditions: cluster torn down and ready to power off
+ Trigger events: (spontaneous)
+
+ CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP (inbound)
+ Conditions: none
+ Trigger events:
+
+ a) an explicit hardware power-up operation,
+ resulting from a policy decision on another
+ CPU;
+
+ b) a hardware event, such as an interrupt.
+
+
+CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP:
+
+ The cluster is (or was) being torn down, but another CPU has
+ come online in the meantime and is trying to set up the cluster
+ again.
+
+ If the outbound CPU observes this state, it has two choices:
+
+ a) back out of teardown, restoring the cluster to the
+ CLUSTER_UP state;
+
+ b) finish tearing the cluster down and put the cluster
+ in the CLUSTER_DOWN state; the inbound CPU will
+ set up the cluster again from there.
+
+ Choice (a) permits the removal of some latency by avoiding
+ unnecessary teardown and setup operations in situations where
+ the cluster is not really going to be powered down.
+
+
+ Next states:
+
+ CLUSTER_UP/INBOUND_COMING_UP (outbound)
+ Conditions: cluster-level setup and hardware
+ coherency complete
+ Trigger events: (spontaneous)
+
+ CLUSTER_DOWN/INBOUND_COMING_UP (outbound)
+ Conditions: cluster torn down and ready to power off
+ Trigger events: (spontaneous)
+
+
+Last man and First man selection
+--------------------------------
+
+The CPU which performs cluster tear-down operations on the outbound side
+is commonly referred to as the "last man".
+
+The CPU which performs cluster setup on the inbound side is commonly
+referred to as the "first man".
+
+The race avoidance algorithm documented above does not provide a
+mechanism to choose which CPUs should play these roles.
+
+
+Last man:
+
+When shutting down the cluster, all the CPUs involved are initially
+executing Linux and hence coherent. Therefore, ordinary spinlocks can
+be used to select a last man safely, before the CPUs become
+non-coherent.
+
+
+First man:
+
+Because CPUs may power up asynchronously in response to external wake-up
+events, a dynamic mechanism is needed to make sure that only one CPU
+attempts to play the first man role and do the cluster-level
+initialisation: any other CPUs must wait for this to complete before
+proceeding.
+
+Cluster-level initialisation may involve actions such as configuring
+coherency controls in the bus fabric.
+
+The current implementation in mcpm_head.S uses a separate mutual exclusion
+mechanism to do this arbitration. This mechanism is documented in
+detail in vlocks.txt.
+
+
+Features and Limitations
+------------------------
+
+Implementation:
+
+ The current ARM-based implementation is split between
+ arch/arm/common/mcpm_head.S (low-level inbound CPU operations) and
+ arch/arm/common/mcpm_entry.c (everything else):
+
+ __mcpm_cpu_going_down() signals the transition of a CPU to the
+ CPU_GOING_DOWN state.
+
+ __mcpm_cpu_down() signals the transition of a CPU to the CPU_DOWN
+ state.
+
+ A CPU transitions to CPU_COMING_UP and then to CPU_UP via the
+ low-level power-up code in mcpm_head.S. This could
+ involve CPU-specific setup code, but in the current
+ implementation it does not.
+
+ __mcpm_outbound_enter_critical() and __mcpm_outbound_leave_critical()
+ handle transitions from CLUSTER_UP to CLUSTER_GOING_DOWN
+ and from there to CLUSTER_DOWN or back to CLUSTER_UP (in
+ the case of an aborted cluster power-down).
+
+ These functions are more complex than the __mcpm_cpu_*()
+ functions due to the extra inter-CPU coordination which
+ is needed for safe transitions at the cluster level.
+
+ A cluster transitions from CLUSTER_DOWN back to CLUSTER_UP via
+ the low-level power-up code in mcpm_head.S. This
+ typically involves platform-specific setup code,
+ provided by the platform-specific power_up_setup
+ function registered via mcpm_sync_init.
+
+Deep topologies:
+
+ As currently described and implemented, the algorithm does not
+ support CPU topologies involving more than two levels (i.e.,
+ clusters of clusters are not supported). The algorithm could be
+ extended by replicating the cluster-level states for the
+ additional topological levels, and modifying the transition
+ rules for the intermediate (non-outermost) cluster levels.
+
+
+Colophon
+--------
+
+Originally created and documented by Dave Martin for Linaro Limited, in
+collaboration with Nicolas Pitre and Achin Gupta.
+
+Copyright (C) 2012-2013 Linaro Limited
+Distributed under the terms of Version 2 of the GNU General Public
+License, as defined in linux/COPYING.
diff --git a/Documentation/arm/vlocks.txt b/Documentation/arm/vlocks.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..415960a9bab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/arm/vlocks.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,211 @@
+vlocks for Bare-Metal Mutual Exclusion
+======================================
+
+Voting Locks, or "vlocks" provide a simple low-level mutual exclusion
+mechanism, with reasonable but minimal requirements on the memory
+system.
+
+These are intended to be used to coordinate critical activity among CPUs
+which are otherwise non-coherent, in situations where the hardware
+provides no other mechanism to support this and ordinary spinlocks
+cannot be used.
+
+
+vlocks make use of the atomicity provided by the memory system for
+writes to a single memory location. To arbitrate, every CPU "votes for
+itself", by storing a unique number to a common memory location. The
+final value seen in that memory location when all the votes have been
+cast identifies the winner.
+
+In order to make sure that the election produces an unambiguous result
+in finite time, a CPU will only enter the election in the first place if
+no winner has been chosen and the election does not appear to have
+started yet.
+
+
+Algorithm
+---------
+
+The easiest way to explain the vlocks algorithm is with some pseudo-code:
+
+
+ int currently_voting[NR_CPUS] = { 0, };
+ int last_vote = -1; /* no votes yet */
+
+ bool vlock_trylock(int this_cpu)
+ {
+ /* signal our desire to vote */
+ currently_voting[this_cpu] = 1;
+ if (last_vote != -1) {
+ /* someone already volunteered himself */
+ currently_voting[this_cpu] = 0;
+ return false; /* not ourself */
+ }
+
+ /* let's suggest ourself */
+ last_vote = this_cpu;
+ currently_voting[this_cpu] = 0;
+
+ /* then wait until everyone else is done voting */
+ for_each_cpu(i) {
+ while (currently_voting[i] != 0)
+ /* wait */;
+ }
+
+ /* result */
+ if (last_vote == this_cpu)
+ return true; /* we won */
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ bool vlock_unlock(void)
+ {
+ last_vote = -1;
+ }
+
+
+The currently_voting[] array provides a way for the CPUs to determine
+whether an election is in progress, and plays a role analogous to the
+"entering" array in Lamport's bakery algorithm [1].
+
+However, once the election has started, the underlying memory system
+atomicity is used to pick the winner. This avoids the need for a static
+priority rule to act as a tie-breaker, or any counters which could
+overflow.
+
+As long as the last_vote variable is globally visible to all CPUs, it
+will contain only one value that won't change once every CPU has cleared
+its currently_voting flag.
+
+
+Features and limitations
+------------------------
+
+ * vlocks are not intended to be fair. In the contended case, it is the
+ _last_ CPU which attempts to get the lock which will be most likely
+ to win.
+
+ vlocks are therefore best suited to situations where it is necessary
+ to pick a unique winner, but it does not matter which CPU actually
+ wins.
+
+ * Like other similar mechanisms, vlocks will not scale well to a large
+ number of CPUs.
+
+ vlocks can be cascaded in a voting hierarchy to permit better scaling
+ if necessary, as in the following hypothetical example for 4096 CPUs:
+
+ /* first level: local election */
+ my_town = towns[(this_cpu >> 4) & 0xf];
+ I_won = vlock_trylock(my_town, this_cpu & 0xf);
+ if (I_won) {
+ /* we won the town election, let's go for the state */
+ my_state = states[(this_cpu >> 8) & 0xf];
+ I_won = vlock_lock(my_state, this_cpu & 0xf));
+ if (I_won) {
+ /* and so on */
+ I_won = vlock_lock(the_whole_country, this_cpu & 0xf];
+ if (I_won) {
+ /* ... */
+ }
+ vlock_unlock(the_whole_country);
+ }
+ vlock_unlock(my_state);
+ }
+ vlock_unlock(my_town);
+
+
+ARM implementation
+------------------
+
+The current ARM implementation [2] contains some optimisations beyond
+the basic algorithm:
+
+ * By packing the members of the currently_voting array close together,
+ we can read the whole array in one transaction (providing the number
+ of CPUs potentially contending the lock is small enough). This
+ reduces the number of round-trips required to external memory.
+
+ In the ARM implementation, this means that we can use a single load
+ and comparison:
+
+ LDR Rt, [Rn]
+ CMP Rt, #0
+
+ ...in place of code equivalent to:
+
+ LDRB Rt, [Rn]
+ CMP Rt, #0
+ LDRBEQ Rt, [Rn, #1]
+ CMPEQ Rt, #0
+ LDRBEQ Rt, [Rn, #2]
+ CMPEQ Rt, #0
+ LDRBEQ Rt, [Rn, #3]
+ CMPEQ Rt, #0
+
+ This cuts down on the fast-path latency, as well as potentially
+ reducing bus contention in contended cases.
+
+ The optimisation relies on the fact that the ARM memory system
+ guarantees coherency between overlapping memory accesses of
+ different sizes, similarly to many other architectures. Note that
+ we do not care which element of currently_voting appears in which
+ bits of Rt, so there is no need to worry about endianness in this
+ optimisation.
+
+ If there are too many CPUs to read the currently_voting array in
+ one transaction then multiple transations are still required. The
+ implementation uses a simple loop of word-sized loads for this
+ case. The number of transactions is still fewer than would be
+ required if bytes were loaded individually.
+
+
+ In principle, we could aggregate further by using LDRD or LDM, but
+ to keep the code simple this was not attempted in the initial
+ implementation.
+
+
+ * vlocks are currently only used to coordinate between CPUs which are
+ unable to enable their caches yet. This means that the
+ implementation removes many of the barriers which would be required
+ when executing the algorithm in cached memory.
+
+ packing of the currently_voting array does not work with cached
+ memory unless all CPUs contending the lock are cache-coherent, due
+ to cache writebacks from one CPU clobbering values written by other
+ CPUs. (Though if all the CPUs are cache-coherent, you should be
+ probably be using proper spinlocks instead anyway).
+
+
+ * The "no votes yet" value used for the last_vote variable is 0 (not
+ -1 as in the pseudocode). This allows statically-allocated vlocks
+ to be implicitly initialised to an unlocked state simply by putting
+ them in .bss.
+
+ An offset is added to each CPU's ID for the purpose of setting this
+ variable, so that no CPU uses the value 0 for its ID.
+
+
+Colophon
+--------
+
+Originally created and documented by Dave Martin for Linaro Limited, for
+use in ARM-based big.LITTLE platforms, with review and input gratefully
+received from Nicolas Pitre and Achin Gupta. Thanks to Nicolas for
+grabbing most of this text out of the relevant mail thread and writing
+up the pseudocode.
+
+Copyright (C) 2012-2013 Linaro Limited
+Distributed under the terms of Version 2 of the GNU General Public
+License, as defined in linux/COPYING.
+
+
+References
+----------
+
+[1] Lamport, L. "A New Solution of Dijkstra's Concurrent Programming
+ Problem", Communications of the ACM 17, 8 (August 1974), 453-455.
+
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport%27s_bakery_algorithm
+
+[2] linux/arch/arm/common/vlock.S, www.kernel.org.
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/pmu.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/pmu.txt
index 343781b9f24..4ce82d045a6 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/pmu.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/pmu.txt
@@ -16,6 +16,9 @@ Required properties:
"arm,arm1176-pmu"
"arm,arm1136-pmu"
- interrupts : 1 combined interrupt or 1 per core.
+- cluster : a phandle to the cluster to which it belongs
+ If there are more than one cluster with same CPU type
+ then there should be separate PMU nodes per cluster.
Example:
diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
index 8ccbf27aead..69e11cfa94e 100644
--- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -1212,6 +1212,15 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
See comment before ip2_setup() in
drivers/char/ip2/ip2base.c.
+ irqaffinity= [SMP] Set the default irq affinity mask
+ Format:
+ <cpu number>,...,<cpu number>
+ or
+ <cpu number>-<cpu number>
+ (must be a positive range in ascending order)
+ or a mixture
+ <cpu number>,...,<cpu number>-<cpu number>
+
irqfixup [HW]
When an interrupt is not handled search all handlers
for it. Intended to get systems with badly broken