Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:21:39 +0100 | Subject | Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT | From | Anton Ivanov <> |
| |
On 19/09/2023 14:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:37:24PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 14:00 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 02:30:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>>> Though it just occured to me that there are dragons lurking: >>>> >>>> arch/alpha/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT >>>> arch/hexagon/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT >>>> arch/m68k/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT if !COLDFIRE >>>> arch/um/Kconfig: select ARCH_NO_PREEMPT >>> >>> Sounds like three-and-a-half architectures which could be queued up for >>> removal right behind ia64 ... >> >> 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 :-)
In the case of UML adding preempt will be quite difficult. I looked at this a few years back.
At the same time it is used for kernel test and other stuff. It is not exactly abandonware on a CPU found in archaeological artifacts of past civilizations like ia64.
> > _______________________________________________ > linux-um mailing list > linux-um@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um >
-- Anton R. Ivanov Cambridgegreys Limited. Registered in England. Company Number 10273661 https://www.cambridgegreys.com/
| |