[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230919141627.GB39281@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 16:16:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, mgorman@...e.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com,
raghavendra.kt@....com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Brian Cain <bcain@...cinc.com>,
linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org,
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:48:09PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 15:42 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > The agreement to kill off ia64 wasn't an invitation to kill off other stuff
> > > that people are still working on! Can we please not do this?
> >
> > If you're working on one of them, then surely it's a simple matter of
> > working on adding CONFIG_PREEMPT support :-)
>
> As Geert poined out, I'm not seeing anything particular problematic with the
> architectures lacking CONFIG_PREEMPT at the moment. This seems to be more
> something about organizing KConfig files.
The plan in the parent thread is to remove PREEMPT_NONE and
PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY and only keep PREEMPT_FULL.
> I find it a bit unfair that maintainers of architectures that have huge companies
> behind them use their manpower to urge less popular architectures for removal just
> because they don't have 150 people working on the port so they can keep up with
> design changes quickly.
PREEMPT isn't something new. Also, I don't think the arch part for
actually supporting it is particularly hard, mostly it is sticking the
preempt_schedule_irq() call in return from interrupt code path.
If you convert the arch to generic-entry (a much larger undertaking)
then you get this for free.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists