[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200729063417.GD286933@localhost>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 23:34:17 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
alex.gaynor@...il.com, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
geofft@...reload.com, jbaublitz@...hat.com,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: Linux kernel in-tree Rust support
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:40:38PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > We just need to make sure that any kernel CI infrastructure tests that
> > right away, then, so that failures don't get introduced by a patch from
> > someone without a Rust toolchain and not noticed until someone with a
> > Rust toolchain tests it.
>
> So... I'm fan of Rust, but while trying to use it one thing was obvious: it
> takes _significantly_ longer than C to compile and needs gigabyte a lot of RAM.
>
> Kernel is quite big project, can CI infrastructure handle additional load?
>
> Will developers see significantly longer compile times when Rust is widespread?
I wouldn't expect the addition of Rust to the kernel to substantially
impact overall build time; on balance, I'd expect the major bottleneck
in kernel builds to continue to be linking and other serialized steps,
not compiling and other highly parallel steps.
There are also *many* things that can be done to improve Rust build time
in a project. And I don't expect that in-kernel Rust will have many
dependencies on third-party crates (since they'd need to be checked into
the tree).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists