Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 19 (UML)

2023-09-19 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Nick, On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:18:36 -0700 Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 08:42:07AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > on i386 or x86_64: > > > > ../arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.c: In function 'execmem_arch_params': > > ../arch/x86/um/../kernel/module.c:54:50: error: imp

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 19 (UML)

2023-09-19 Thread Nick Desaulniers
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 08:42:07AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > On 9/18/23 23:37, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20230918: > > > > New tree: kvm-ppc > > > > The mm tree gained a boot warning for which I reverted 5 commits. > > > > Non-merge commits (relative to

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, Sep 19 2023 at 11:52, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 19 Sept 2023 at 11:37, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> >> We could simply leave the cond_resched() around but defined as nops for >> everything but the "nostalgia club" to keep them from having any regressions. > > I doubt the nostalgia club c

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Tue, 19 Sept 2023 at 11:37, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > We could simply leave the cond_resched() around but defined as nops for > everything but the "nostalgia club" to keep them from having any regressions. I doubt the nostalgia club cares about some latencies (that are usually only noticeable

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 20:31:50 +0200 Thomas Gleixner wrote: > The removal of cond_resched() might cause latencies, but then I doubt > that these museus pieces are used for real work :) We could simply leave the cond_resched() around but defined as nops for everything but the "nostalgia club" to ke

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, Sep 19 2023 at 10:25, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 19 Sept 2023 at 06:48, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > wrote: >> >> 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

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hi Linus! On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 10:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 19 Sept 2023 at 06:48, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > wrote: > > > > As Geert poined out, I'm not seeing anything particular problematic with the > > architectures lacking CONFIG_PREEMPT at the moment. This seems to be mor

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, Sep 19 2023 at 17:41, Anton Ivanov wrote: > On 19/09/2023 17:22, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> - Ursprüngliche Mail - >>> Von: "anton ivanov" >>> It's been a while. I remember that I dropped it at the time, but do not >>> remember >>> the full details. >>> >>> There was some stuff

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Tue, 19 Sept 2023 at 06:48, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > 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. It can definitely be problematic

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Anton Ivanov
On 19/09/2023 17:22, Richard Weinberger wrote: - Ursprüngliche Mail - Von: "anton ivanov" It's been a while. I remember that I dropped it at the time, but do not remember the full details. There was some stuff related to FP state and a few other issues I ran into while rewriting the

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Richard Weinberger
- Ursprüngliche Mail - > Von: "anton ivanov" > It's been a while. I remember that I dropped it at the time, but do not > remember > the full details. > > There was some stuff related to FP state and a few other issues I ran into > while > rewriting the interrupt controller. Some of it m

Re: [PATCH 0/7] arch/*: config: Remove ReiserFS from defconfig

2023-09-19 Thread Peter Lafreniere
Hi Geert, On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 12:02, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 5:58 PM Peter Lafreniere pe...@n8pjl.ca wrote: > > > 2) Stops building an obsolete and largely-unused filesystem unnecessarily. > > Some hobbyist targets like m68k and alpha may prefer

Re: [PATCH 0/7] arch/*: config: Remove ReiserFS from defconfig

2023-09-19 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Peter, On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 5:58 PM Peter Lafreniere wrote: > 2) Stops building an obsolete and largely-unused filesystem unnecessarily. > Some hobbyist targets like m68k and alpha may prefer to keep all > filesystems > available until total removal, but others like arm and UML ha

Re: [PATCH 0/7] arch/*: config: Remove ReiserFS from defconfig

2023-09-19 Thread Peter Lafreniere
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 11:16, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 12:00:34AM +, Peter Lafreniere wrote: > > > On Monday, September 18th, 2023 at 19:41, Segher Boessenkool > > seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 05:56:09PM +, Peter Lafre

Re: linux-next: Tree for Sep 19 (UML)

2023-09-19 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 9/18/23 23:37, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20230918: > > New tree: kvm-ppc > > The mm tree gained a boot warning for which I reverted 5 commits. > > Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 5750 > 3717 files changed, 446028 insertions(+), 107378 deletions(-) >

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:32:05 +0100 Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 04:24:48PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > If the conversion isn't hard, why is the first reflex the urge to remove an > > architecture > > instead of offering advise how to get the conversion done?

Re: [PATCH 0/7] arch/*: config: Remove ReiserFS from defconfig

2023-09-19 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 12:00:34AM +, Peter Lafreniere wrote: > On Monday, September 18th, 2023 at 19:41, Segher Boessenkool > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 05:56:09PM +, Peter Lafreniere wrote: > > > > > ReiserFS has been considered deprecated for 19 months since commit > > > eb103

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Anton Ivanov
On 19/09/2023 16:17, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, Sep 19 2023 at 15:21, Anton Ivanov wrote: On 19/09/2023 14:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote: If you're working on one of them, then surely it's a simple matter of working on adding CONFIG_PREEMPT support :-) In the case of UML adding preempt will b

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, Sep 19 2023 at 15:21, Anton Ivanov wrote: > On 19/09/2023 14:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> If you're working on one of them, then surely it's a simple matter of >> working on adding CONFIG_PREEMPT support :-) > > In the case of UML adding preempt will be quite difficult. I looked at > this a

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Matt Turner
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:51 AM H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On September 19, 2023 7:17:04 AM PDT, Thomas Gleixner > wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 19 2023 at 15:48, 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

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On September 19, 2023 7:17:04 AM PDT, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >On Tue, Sep 19 2023 at 15:48, 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 s

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Anton Ivanov
On 19/09/2023 14:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:37:24PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 14:00 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 02:30:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: Though it just occured to me that there are dragons

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 04:24:48PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > If the conversion isn't hard, why is the first reflex the urge to remove an > architecture > instead of offering advise how to get the conversion done? Because PREEMPT has been around since before 2005 (cc19ca86a023 crea

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 16:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > 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

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, Sep 19 2023 at 15:48, 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 on

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Peter Zijlstra
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? > > > >

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
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 CO

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:37:24PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 14:00 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 02:30:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Though it just occured to me that there are dragons lurking: > > > > > > arch/alpha/Kconf

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 14:00 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 02:30:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Though it just occured to me that there are dragons lurking: > > > > arch/alpha/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT > > arch/hexagon/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT > >

Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Willy, On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:01 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 02:30:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Though it just occured to me that there are dragons lurking: > > > > arch/alpha/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT > > arch/hexagon/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PRE

Arches that don't support PREEMPT

2023-09-19 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 02:30:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Though it just occured to me that there are dragons lurking: > > arch/alpha/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT > arch/hexagon/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT > arch/m68k/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT if !COLDFIRE > arch/u