linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-01-13 20:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ 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  0:30   ` Luck, Tony
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 16:17       ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 20:49       ` Jessica Clarke [this message]
2023-01-13 21:03         ` Luck, Tony
2023-01-13 21:04           ` Jessica Clarke
2023-01-13 21:05       ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-13 23:25         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-14 11:24           ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-14 11:28             ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-15  0:27               ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-15 12:04                 ` Sedat Dilek
2023-01-16  9:42                   ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16  9:41                 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2023-01-16 13:28                   ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16  9:40               ` 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 10:09             ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-13  1:12   ` lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13  4:08     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  9:46     ` Will Deacon
2023-01-13  3:20   ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-13  4:15     ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-13  5:36       ` Nicholas Piggin
2023-01-16 14:08     ` Memory transaction instructions David Howells
2023-01-16 15:09       ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-16 16:59       ` Linus Torvalds
2023-01-18  9:05       ` David Howells
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 18:44   ` [PATCH] lockref: stop doing cpu_relax in the cmpxchg loop Mateusz Guzik
2023-01-13 21:47     ` Luck, Tony
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).