All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	"Torvalds, Linus" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: ia64 removal (was: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax)
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2023 00:25:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXEtTuaNFiKWn3cJngR0J2vr0G07HR6+5PBodtr1b7vNxg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <db6937a1-e817-2d7b-0062-9aff012bb3e8@physik.fu-berlin.de>

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 22:06, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> Hello Ard!
>
> > Can I take that as an ack on [0]? The EFI subsystem has evolved
> > substantially over the years, and there is really no way to do any
> > IA64 testing beyond build testing, so from that perspective, dropping
> > it entirely would be welcomed.
>
> ia64 is regularly tested in Debian and Gentoo [1][2].
>
> Debian's ia64 porterbox yttrium runs a recent kernel without issues:
>
> root@yttrium:~# uname -a
> Linux yttrium 5.19.0-2-mckinley #1 SMP Debian 5.19.11-1 (2022-09-24) ia64 GNU/Linux
> root@yttrium:~#
>
> root@yttrium:~# journalctl -b|head -n10
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: Linux version 5.19.0-2-mckinley (debian-kernel@lists.debian.org) (gcc-11 (Debian 11.3.0-6) 11.3.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.39) #1 SMP Debian 5.19.11-1 (2022-09-24)
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: efi: EFI v2.10 by HP
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: efi: SALsystab=0xdfdd63a18 ESI=0xdfdd63f18 ACPI 2.0=0x3d3c4014 HCDP=0xdffff8798 SMBIOS=0x3d368000
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: PCDP: v3 at 0xdffff8798
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: earlycon: uart8250 at I/O port 0x4000 (options '115200n8')
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: printk: bootconsole [uart8250] enabled
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: ACPI: Early table checksum verification disabled
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: ACPI: RSDP 0x000000003D3C4014 000024 (v02 HP    )
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: ACPI: XSDT 0x000000003D3C4580 000124 (v01 HP     RX2800-2 00000001      01000013)
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: ACPI: FACP 0x000000003D3BE000 0000F4 (v03 HP     RX2800-2 00000001 HP   00000001)
> root@yttrium:~#
>
> Same applies to the buildds:
>
> root@lifshitz:~# uname -a
> Linux lifshitz 6.0.0-4-mckinley #1 SMP Debian 6.0.8-1 (2022-11-11) ia64 GNU/Linux
> root@lifshitz:~#
>
> root@lenz:~# uname -a
> Linux lenz 6.0.0-4-mckinley #1 SMP Debian 6.0.8-1 (2022-11-11) ia64 GNU/Linux
> root@lenz:~#
>
> EFI works fine as well using the latest version of GRUB2.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> > [1] https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/snapshots/
> > [2] https://mirror.yandex.ru/gentoo-distfiles//releases/ia64/autobuilds/

Thanks for reporting back. I (mis)read the debian ports page [3],
which mentions Debian 7 as the highest Debian version that supports
IA64, and so I assumed that support had been dropped from Debian.

However, if only a handful of people want to keep this port alive for
reasons of nostalgia, it is obviously obsolete, and we should ask
ourselves whether it is reasonable to expect Linux contributors to
keep spending time on this.

Does the Debian ia64 port have any users? Or is the system that builds
the packages the only one that consumes them?


[3] https://www.debian.org/ports/ia64/

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
	"Torvalds, Linus" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: ia64 removal (was: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax)
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2023 00:25:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXEtTuaNFiKWn3cJngR0J2vr0G07HR6+5PBodtr1b7vNxg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <db6937a1-e817-2d7b-0062-9aff012bb3e8@physik.fu-berlin.de>

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 22:06, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> Hello Ard!
>
> > Can I take that as an ack on [0]? The EFI subsystem has evolved
> > substantially over the years, and there is really no way to do any
> > IA64 testing beyond build testing, so from that perspective, dropping
> > it entirely would be welcomed.
>
> ia64 is regularly tested in Debian and Gentoo [1][2].
>
> Debian's ia64 porterbox yttrium runs a recent kernel without issues:
>
> root@yttrium:~# uname -a
> Linux yttrium 5.19.0-2-mckinley #1 SMP Debian 5.19.11-1 (2022-09-24) ia64 GNU/Linux
> root@yttrium:~#
>
> root@yttrium:~# journalctl -b|head -n10
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: Linux version 5.19.0-2-mckinley (debian-kernel@lists.debian.org) (gcc-11 (Debian 11.3.0-6) 11.3.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.39) #1 SMP Debian 5.19.11-1 (2022-09-24)
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: efi: EFI v2.10 by HP
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: efi: SALsystab=0xdfdd63a18 ESI=0xdfdd63f18 ACPI 2.0=0x3d3c4014 HCDP=0xdffff8798 SMBIOS=0x3d368000
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: PCDP: v3 at 0xdffff8798
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: earlycon: uart8250 at I/O port 0x4000 (options '115200n8')
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: printk: bootconsole [uart8250] enabled
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: ACPI: Early table checksum verification disabled
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: ACPI: RSDP 0x000000003D3C4014 000024 (v02 HP    )
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: ACPI: XSDT 0x000000003D3C4580 000124 (v01 HP     RX2800-2 00000001      01000013)
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: ACPI: FACP 0x000000003D3BE000 0000F4 (v03 HP     RX2800-2 00000001 HP   00000001)
> root@yttrium:~#
>
> Same applies to the buildds:
>
> root@lifshitz:~# uname -a
> Linux lifshitz 6.0.0-4-mckinley #1 SMP Debian 6.0.8-1 (2022-11-11) ia64 GNU/Linux
> root@lifshitz:~#
>
> root@lenz:~# uname -a
> Linux lenz 6.0.0-4-mckinley #1 SMP Debian 6.0.8-1 (2022-11-11) ia64 GNU/Linux
> root@lenz:~#
>
> EFI works fine as well using the latest version of GRUB2.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> > [1] https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/snapshots/
> > [2] https://mirror.yandex.ru/gentoo-distfiles//releases/ia64/autobuilds/

Thanks for reporting back. I (mis)read the debian ports page [3],
which mentions Debian 7 as the highest Debian version that supports
IA64, and so I assumed that support had been dropped from Debian.

However, if only a handful of people want to keep this port alive for
reasons of nostalgia, it is obviously obsolete, and we should ask
ourselves whether it is reasonable to expect Linux contributors to
keep spending time on this.

Does the Debian ia64 port have any users? Or is the system that builds
the packages the only one that consumes them?


[3] https://www.debian.org/ports/ia64/

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	"Torvalds, Linus" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	 Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	 Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	 "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	 "viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@gmail.com>,
	 Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	 linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: ia64 removal (was: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax)
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2023 00:25:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXEtTuaNFiKWn3cJngR0J2vr0G07HR6+5PBodtr1b7vNxg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <db6937a1-e817-2d7b-0062-9aff012bb3e8@physik.fu-berlin.de>

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 22:06, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> Hello Ard!
>
> > Can I take that as an ack on [0]? The EFI subsystem has evolved
> > substantially over the years, and there is really no way to do any
> > IA64 testing beyond build testing, so from that perspective, dropping
> > it entirely would be welcomed.
>
> ia64 is regularly tested in Debian and Gentoo [1][2].
>
> Debian's ia64 porterbox yttrium runs a recent kernel without issues:
>
> root@yttrium:~# uname -a
> Linux yttrium 5.19.0-2-mckinley #1 SMP Debian 5.19.11-1 (2022-09-24) ia64 GNU/Linux
> root@yttrium:~#
>
> root@yttrium:~# journalctl -b|head -n10
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: Linux version 5.19.0-2-mckinley (debian-kernel@lists.debian.org) (gcc-11 (Debian 11.3.0-6) 11.3.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.39) #1 SMP Debian 5.19.11-1 (2022-09-24)
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: efi: EFI v2.10 by HP
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: efi: SALsystab=0xdfdd63a18 ESI=0xdfdd63f18 ACPI 2.0=0x3d3c4014 HCDP=0xdffff8798 SMBIOS=0x3d368000
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: PCDP: v3 at 0xdffff8798
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: earlycon: uart8250 at I/O port 0x4000 (options '115200n8')
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: printk: bootconsole [uart8250] enabled
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: ACPI: Early table checksum verification disabled
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: ACPI: RSDP 0x000000003D3C4014 000024 (v02 HP    )
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: ACPI: XSDT 0x000000003D3C4580 000124 (v01 HP     RX2800-2 00000001      01000013)
> Nov 14 14:46:10 yttrium kernel: ACPI: FACP 0x000000003D3BE000 0000F4 (v03 HP     RX2800-2 00000001 HP   00000001)
> root@yttrium:~#
>
> Same applies to the buildds:
>
> root@lifshitz:~# uname -a
> Linux lifshitz 6.0.0-4-mckinley #1 SMP Debian 6.0.8-1 (2022-11-11) ia64 GNU/Linux
> root@lifshitz:~#
>
> root@lenz:~# uname -a
> Linux lenz 6.0.0-4-mckinley #1 SMP Debian 6.0.8-1 (2022-11-11) ia64 GNU/Linux
> root@lenz:~#
>
> EFI works fine as well using the latest version of GRUB2.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> > [1] https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/snapshots/
> > [2] https://mirror.yandex.ru/gentoo-distfiles//releases/ia64/autobuilds/

Thanks for reporting back. I (mis)read the debian ports page [3],
which mentions Debian 7 as the highest Debian version that supports
IA64, and so I assumed that support had been dropped from Debian.

However, if only a handful of people want to keep this port alive for
reasons of nostalgia, it is obviously obsolete, and we should ask
ourselves whether it is reasonable to expect Linux contributors to
keep spending time on this.

Does the Debian ia64 port have any users? Or is the system that builds
the packages the only one that consumes them?


[3] https://www.debian.org/ports/ia64/

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2023-01-13 23:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 108+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-01-12 23:36 lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  0:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:13   ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:13   ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:30   ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13  0:30     ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13  0:30     ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13  0:45     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:45       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  0:45       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  7:55     ` ia64 removal (was: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax) Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13  7:55       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13  7:55       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 16:17       ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 16:17         ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 16:17         ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 20:49       ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 20:49         ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 20:49         ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:03         ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:03           ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:03           ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:04           ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:04             ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:04             ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:05       ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 21:05         ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 21:05         ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 23:25         ` Ard Biesheuvel [this message]
2023-01-13 23:25           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13 23:25           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-14 11:24           ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:24             ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:24             ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28             ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28               ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28               ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15  0:27               ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15  0:27                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15  0:27                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15 12:04                 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15 12:04                   ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15 12:04                   ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-16  9:42                   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:42                     ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:42                     ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:41                 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:41                   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:41                   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 13:28                   ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 13:28                     ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 13:28                     ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16  9:40               ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:40                 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:40                 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:37             ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:37               ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:37               ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:32           ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:32             ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:32             ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 10:09             ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-16 10:09               ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-16 10:09               ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13  1:12   ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  1:12     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  1:12     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  4:08     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  4:08       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  4:08       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  9:46     ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13  9:46       ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13  9:46       ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13  3:20   ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  3:20     ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  3:20     ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  4:15     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  4:15       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  4:15       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  5:36       ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  5:36         ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  5:36         ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-16 14:08     ` Memory transaction instructions David Howells
2023-01-16 14:08       ` David Howells
2023-01-16 15:09       ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 15:09         ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 15:09         ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 16:59       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-16 16:59         ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-16 16:59         ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-18  9:05       ` David Howells
2023-01-18  9:05         ` David Howells
2023-01-18  9:05         ` David Howells
2023-01-19  1:41         ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-19  1:41           ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-19  1:41           ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13 10:23   ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 10:23     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 10:23     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-01-13 18:44   ` [PATCH] lockref: stop doing cpu_relax in the cmpxchg loop Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 18:44     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 18:44     ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 21:47     ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:47       ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:47       ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 23:31       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 23:31         ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13 23:31         ` Linus Torvalds

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAMj1kXEtTuaNFiKWn3cJngR0J2vr0G07HR6+5PBodtr1b7vNxg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de \
    --cc=jan.glauber@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.