linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/23] ILP32 for ARM64

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:19:31 +0100
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	arnd@...db.de, yury.norov@...il.com, agraf@...e.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, klimov.linux@...il.com,
	Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
	bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com, apinski@...ium.com,
	philipp.tomsich@...obroma-systems.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/23] ILP32 for ARM64

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:41:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:19:19AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:13:57AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> 
> > >  - What for ILP32 on ARM64?
> > > 	See https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/13/814
> > > 	and http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.uclibc.buildroot/121100
> > > 	Briefly,
> > > 	 - for compatibility;
> > > 	 - for performance;
> > > 	 - for memory saving.
> 
> > Does anyone actually need this ABI? And by "need" I don't mean a
> > tick-box on product fliers but actually someone going to use it on real
> > systems in the field. Because I'm not keen on maintaining an ABI in the
> > kernel just as a PR exercise. I have yet to see conclusive benchmarks
> > that ILP32 is a real win vs LP64 but happy to be proven wrong.
> 
> Indeed.  On that subject there was some discussion at Linaro Connect
> last week about work (being done outside Linaro, not sure how public it
> is at this point) to pull together the current state of the art into a
> Docker container image which people can use for benchmarking and as a
> reference for how to pull things together.  That should help with the
> analysis, it'll at least make it easier for other people to reproduce
> any benchmarking results.

That's fine and I would welcome it. However, I'm definitely against
using non-agreed ABI and further spreading such toolchains (or kernel
patches; Linaro's tracking kernel has kept these patches for a long
time, even though the ABI has been NAK'ed).

-- 
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/