On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:51 AM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? I do, as part of maintaining the Gentoo distribution for Alpha. I'm listed in MAINTAINERS, but really only so I can collect patches send them to Linus after testing. I don't have copious amounts of free time to be proactive in kernel development and it's also not really my area of expertise so I'm nowhere near effective at it. I would be happy to test any patches sent my way (but I acknowledge that writing these patches wouldn't be high on anyone's priority list, etc) (A video my friend Ian and I made about a particularly large AlphaServer I have in my basement, in case anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z658a8Js5qg)
