From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755600AbbJALTi (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2015 07:19:38 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:35620 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751697AbbJALTg (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2015 07:19:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:19:31 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Mark Brown Cc: arnd@arndb.de, yury.norov@gmail.com, agraf@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, klimov.linux@gmail.com, Yury Norov , bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com, apinski@cavium.com, philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, christoph.muellner@theobroma-systems.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/23] ILP32 for ARM64 Message-ID: <20151001111931.GD6963@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1443564860-31208-1-git-send-email-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> <20150930101918.GA9753@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150930164103.GC15635@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150930164103.GC15635@sirena.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:41:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:19:19AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:13:57AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > > - What for ILP32 on ARM64? > > > See https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/13/814 > > > and http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.uclibc.buildroot/121100 > > > Briefly, > > > - for compatibility; > > > - for performance; > > > - for memory saving. > > > Does anyone actually need this ABI? And by "need" I don't mean a > > tick-box on product fliers but actually someone going to use it on real > > systems in the field. Because I'm not keen on maintaining an ABI in the > > kernel just as a PR exercise. I have yet to see conclusive benchmarks > > that ILP32 is a real win vs LP64 but happy to be proven wrong. > > Indeed. On that subject there was some discussion at Linaro Connect > last week about work (being done outside Linaro, not sure how public it > is at this point) to pull together the current state of the art into a > Docker container image which people can use for benchmarking and as a > reference for how to pull things together. That should help with the > analysis, it'll at least make it easier for other people to reproduce > any benchmarking results. That's fine and I would welcome it. However, I'm definitely against using non-agreed ABI and further spreading such toolchains (or kernel patches; Linaro's tracking kernel has kept these patches for a long time, even though the ABI has been NAK'ed). -- Catalin