On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:48:09PM +0200, 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. The plan in the parent thread is to remove PREEMPT_NONE and PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY and only keep PREEMPT_FULL. > 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. PREEMPT isn't something new. Also, I don't think the arch part for actually supporting it is particularly hard, mostly it is sticking the preempt_schedule_irq() call in return from interrupt code path. If you convert the arch to generic-entry (a much larger undertaking) then you get this for free.
