From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB85CE79AA for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 18:31:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232016AbjISScB (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:32:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54256 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229853AbjISSb6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:31:58 -0400 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE05997; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:31:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1695148311; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mKyOmmSSJD2Ws4VR+XqPS/XNP5VPNOwNw6yDdf2ZDQU=; b=xXqJqYUZla9VpgC4S4ShTGkMIL3gkkhNvGjlWhi5L1gkuz5icUdocjTZfEjeUV9x1XfF1d 9gCf9onnbE0u4V9GNNs47U9xjPBMw2DWytTSoQsodttKIzqkL+7HlaYEWW4FSVqwFkxP9b m3N7cld1jgwk+v3jf2F2vowyOYzbp0oeTYfBdyMg3skppXJK7mZs9rhgY8B0yUaEjzj5rv eNPjV+ty7EkQisVX1wCgp5HdgxQTcki84SeKDSqMlKMRQ4Dwk5yJNMqTIIkjzdPuUEmZXw ZLXZiD6XCNIDxdM95XJgYydUDvKFSGuDWDp3q+ZqWzDj1uSibW0RuXplJpLfmA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1695148311; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mKyOmmSSJD2Ws4VR+XqPS/XNP5VPNOwNw6yDdf2ZDQU=; b=HSw+FE/2ECBsn8P+jBW//lrHd8c9W9Bxp5rJpQcF0U/qlJOFxqfRtQIDeqJGdvK2cG7ELT v2DdyOFXFBXeLSDg== To: Linus Torvalds , John Paul Adrian Glaubitz Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Matthew Wilcox , Ankur Arora , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, luto@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, mgorman@suse.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, jon.grimm@amd.com, bharata@amd.com, raghavendra.kt@amd.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, jgross@suse.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, Richard Weinberger , Anton Ivanov , Johannes Berg , linux-um@lists.infradead.org, Brian Cain , linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Matt Turner , linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT In-Reply-To: References: <87zg1u1h5t.fsf@oracle.com> <20230911150410.GC9098@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <87h6o01w1a.fsf@oracle.com> <20230912082606.GB35261@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <87cyyfxd4k.ffs@tglx> <87led2wdj0.ffs@tglx> <0e69f7df80dc5878071deb0d80938138d19de1d1.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de> <20230919134218.GA39281@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 20:31:50 +0200 Message-ID: <87pm2eui95.ffs@tglx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 organizing KConfig files. > > It can definitely be problematic. > > Not the Kconfig file part, and not the preempt count part itself. > > But the fact that it has never been used and tested means that there > might be tons of "this architecture code knows it's not preemptible, > because this architecture doesn't support preemption". > > So you may have basic architecture code that simply doesn't have the > "preempt_disable()/enable()" pairs that it needs. > > PeterZ mentioned the generic entry code, which does this for the entry > path. But it actually goes much deeper: just do a > > git grep preempt_disable arch/x86/kernel > > and then do the same for some other architectures. > > Looking at alpha, for example, there *are* hits for it, so at least > some of the code there clearly *tries* to do it. But does it cover all > the required parts? If it's never been tested, I'd be surprised if > it's all just ready to go. > > I do think we'd need to basically continue to support ARCH_NO_PREEMPT > - and such architectures migth end up with the worst-cast latencies of > only scheduling at return to user space. The only thing these architectures should gain is the preempt counter itself, but yes the extra preemption points are not mandatory to have, i.e. we simply do not enable them for the nostalgia club. The removal of cond_resched() might cause latencies, but then I doubt that these museus pieces are used for real work :) Thanks, tglx