All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
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: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 20:49:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y8HDzzDaP5uY0v8K@Jessicas-MacBook-Pro> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXEqbMEcrKYzz2-huLPMnotPoxFY8adyH=Xb4Ex8o98x-w@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 08:55:41AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 01:31, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, if it was ia64-only, it's a non-issue these days. It's dead and
> > > in pure maintenance mode from a kernel perspective (if even that).
> >
> > There's not much "simultaneous" in the SMT on ia64. One thread in a
> > spin loop will hog the core until the h/w switches to the other thread some
> > number of cycles (hundreds, thousands? I really can remember). So I
> > was pretty generous with dropping cpu_relax() into any kind of spin loop.
> >
> > Is it time yet for:
> >
> > $ git rm -r arch/ia64
> >
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
> 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.

For what it's worth, Debian and Gentoo both have ia64 ports with active
users (6.1 looks like it currently fails to build in Debian due to a
minor packaging issue, but various versions of 6.0 were built and
published, and one of those is running on the one ia64 Debian builder I
personally have access to).

Jess

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
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: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 20:49:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y8HDzzDaP5uY0v8K@Jessicas-MacBook-Pro> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXEqbMEcrKYzz2-huLPMnotPoxFY8adyH=Xb4Ex8o98x-w@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 08:55:41AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 01:31, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, if it was ia64-only, it's a non-issue these days. It's dead and
> > > in pure maintenance mode from a kernel perspective (if even that).
> >
> > There's not much "simultaneous" in the SMT on ia64. One thread in a
> > spin loop will hog the core until the h/w switches to the other thread some
> > number of cycles (hundreds, thousands? I really can remember). So I
> > was pretty generous with dropping cpu_relax() into any kind of spin loop.
> >
> > Is it time yet for:
> >
> > $ git rm -r arch/ia64
> >
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
> 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.

For what it's worth, Debian and Gentoo both have ia64 ports with active
users (6.1 looks like it currently fails to build in Debian due to a
minor packaging issue, but various versions of 6.0 were built and
published, and one of those is running on the one ia64 Debian builder I
personally have access to).

Jess

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
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: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 20:49:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y8HDzzDaP5uY0v8K@Jessicas-MacBook-Pro> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXEqbMEcrKYzz2-huLPMnotPoxFY8adyH=Xb4Ex8o98x-w@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 08:55:41AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 01:31, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, if it was ia64-only, it's a non-issue these days. It's dead and
> > > in pure maintenance mode from a kernel perspective (if even that).
> >
> > There's not much "simultaneous" in the SMT on ia64. One thread in a
> > spin loop will hog the core until the h/w switches to the other thread some
> > number of cycles (hundreds, thousands? I really can remember). So I
> > was pretty generous with dropping cpu_relax() into any kind of spin loop.
> >
> > Is it time yet for:
> >
> > $ git rm -r arch/ia64
> >
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
> 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.

For what it's worth, Debian and Gentoo both have ia64 ports with active
users (6.1 looks like it currently fails to build in Debian due to a
minor packaging issue, but various versions of 6.0 were built and
published, and one of those is running on the one ia64 Debian builder I
personally have access to).

Jess

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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-01-13 20:49 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 [this message]
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
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=Y8HDzzDaP5uY0v8K@Jessicas-MacBook-Pro \
    --to=jrtc27@jrtc27.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --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.