Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 09:25:37 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
	Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>,
	Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>,
	Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>,
	Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@...c27.com>,
	Andy Chiu <andy.chiu@...ive.com>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] riscv: Support compiling the kernel with more
 extensions

On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 03:55:12PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 11:08:34PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:

> > Maybe if you read what I wrote you'd see what I was getting at, or maybe
> > not as I might not have been sufficiently clear. I'm not saying that this
> > particular optimisation is not worth having, but rather than I wanted to
> 
> I seem to frequently give you the impression that I don't read what you
> say before responding.

Does it happen frequently? I don't really recall it annoying me before.

> What we each view as "important" in the kernel is
> different so we come from different places when approaching a problem. I
> respond in the way that I do not because I am not listening to you, but
> simply because I have a different opinion and I am not explaining that
> properly.

If you're trying to describe a different opinion, responding to the bit
I was talking about, as you do below in your latest response is ideal.
Responding inline but not actually addressing the points I was making
did make me think you were [un]intentionally ignoring what I was trying
to say.

> > see why this particular optimisation was worth maintaining 3 code paths
> 
> I interpreted the "3 code paths" as with Zbb + 64 bit, with Zbb + 32
> bit, and without Zbb. I directly responded to that by saying that we
> could eliminate all of the code paths that are not Zbb + 64 bit could be
> eliminated. I should have given performance numbers for these alternate
> cases too, and somebody should have asked. I agree that performance
> needs justification, and I understand that I did not provide ample
> justification in this patch. All other architectures optimized these
> code paths so I figured that was sufficient justification for riscv to
> do the same, but I understand that it is not.

And hey, if you look at the commit in question, who acked it? I'm just
saying that I think we should have a higher standard going forwards.

> > for but the commit message does not detail any of the benefits, and
> > looking at the cover I discovered that it was not tested in hardware nor
> > seemingly with a real test case.
> 
> It's hard when riscv currently is very focused on microcontrollers.

Zbb is actually implemented in hardware, so testing it in the real world
is not a barrier. Palmer probably has a JH7110 board that someone gave
to him is not using...

> These changes are in order to help future hardware that is more focused
> about performance.

I'm not replying to most of your response rn, got other stuff to do, but
what I was trying to say is that I think the point at which optimisations
for future hardware/extensions should be merged is the point at which
those extensions are no longer future.

> That's why I contribute this upstream with the hope
> that other people, like me, care about performance.

Heh, that could be read to mean that I do not care about performance,
which wouldn't be true.

Cheers,
Conor.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists