lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Arches that don't support PREEMPT
    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.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-09-19 16:17    [W:5.533 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site