On September 19, 2023 7:17:04 AM PDT, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Tue, Sep 19 2023 at 15:48, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 15:42 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> > The agreement to kill off ia64 wasn't an invitation to kill off other stuff >>> > that people are still working on! Can we please not do this? >>> >>> If you're working on one of them, then surely it's a simple matter of >>> working on adding CONFIG_PREEMPT support :-) >> >> 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. >> >> I find it a bit unfair that maintainers of architectures that have huge companies >> behind them use their manpower to urge less popular architectures for removal just >> because they don't have 150 people working on the port so they can keep up with >> design changes quickly. > >I don't urge for removal. I just noticed that these four architectures >lack PREEMPT support. The only thing which is missing is the actual >preemption point in the return to kernel code path. > >But otherwise it should just work, which I obviously can't confirm :) > >Even without that preemption point it should build and boot. There might >be some minor latency issues when that preemption point is not there, >but adding it is not rocket science either. It's probably about 10 lines >of ASM code, if at all. > >Though not adding that might cause a blocking issue for the rework of >the whole preemption logic in order to remove the sprinkled around >cond_resched() muck or force us to maintain some nasty workaround just >for the benefit of a few stranglers. > >So I can make the same argument the other way around, that it's >unjustified that some architectures which are just supported for >nostalgia throw roadblocks into kernel developemnt. > >If my ALPHA foo wouldn't be very close to zero, I'd write that ASM hack >myself, but that's going to cost more of my and your time than it's >worth the trouble, > >Hmm. I could delegate that to Linus, he might still remember :) > >Thanks, > > tglx Does *anyone* actually run Alpha at this point?
