From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Simplify the Linux kernel by reducing its state space Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:22:12 -0700 Message-ID: <20120401012212.GP2450@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20120331163321.GA15809@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120331223200.GA32482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120331223200.GA32482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-alpha-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m32r@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, dhowells@redhat.com, jejb@parisc-linux.org, linux390@de.ibm.com, x86@kernel.org, cmetcalf@tilera.com On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:32:00PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:33:21AM +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of > > parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain > > truth is that the incremental complexity of parallel programming over > > that of sequential programming is not as large as is commonly believed. > > Despite that you might have heard, the mind-numbing complexity of modern > > computer systems is not due so much to there being multiple CPUs, but > > rather to there being any CPUs at all. In short, for the ultimate in > > computer-system simplicity, the optimal choice is NR_CPUS=0. > > > > This commit therefore limits kernel builds to zero CPUs. This change > > has the beneficial side effect of rendering all kernel bugs harmless. > > Furthermore, this commit enables additional beneficial changes, for > > example, the removal of those parts of the kernel that are not needed > > when there are zero CPUs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner > > Great work, but I don't think you've gone far enough with this. > > What would really help is if you could consolidate all these NR_CPUS > definitions into one place so we don't have essentially the same thing > scattered across all these architectures. We're already doing this on > ARM across our platforms, and its about time such an approach was taken > across the entire kernel tree. > > It looks like the MIPS solution would be the best one to pick. > Could you rework your patch to do this please? > > While you're at it, you might like to consider that having zero CPUs > makes all this architecture support redundant, so maybe you've missed > a trick there - according to my count, we could get rid of almost 3 > million lines of code from arch. We could replace all that with a > single standard implementation. > > Bah, maybe I shouldn't have pushed that bpf_jit code for ARM after all... ;-) ;-) ;-) Thanx, Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 01:22:12 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Simplify the Linux kernel by reducing its state space Message-Id: <20120401012212.GP2450@linux.vnet.ibm.com> List-Id: References: <20120331163321.GA15809@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120331223200.GA32482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120331223200.GA32482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:32:00PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:33:21AM +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of > > parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain > > truth is that the incremental complexity of parallel programming over > > that of sequential programming is not as large as is commonly believed. > > Despite that you might have heard, the mind-numbing complexity of modern > > computer systems is not due so much to there being multiple CPUs, but > > rather to there being any CPUs at all. In short, for the ultimate in > > computer-system simplicity, the optimal choice is NR_CPUS=0. > > > > This commit therefore limits kernel builds to zero CPUs. This change > > has the beneficial side effect of rendering all kernel bugs harmless. > > Furthermore, this commit enables additional beneficial changes, for > > example, the removal of those parts of the kernel that are not needed > > when there are zero CPUs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner > > Great work, but I don't think you've gone far enough with this. > > What would really help is if you could consolidate all these NR_CPUS > definitions into one place so we don't have essentially the same thing > scattered across all these architectures. We're already doing this on > ARM across our platforms, and its about time such an approach was taken > across the entire kernel tree. > > It looks like the MIPS solution would be the best one to pick. > Could you rework your patch to do this please? > > While you're at it, you might like to consider that having zero CPUs > makes all this architecture support redundant, so maybe you've missed > a trick there - according to my count, we could get rid of almost 3 > million lines of code from arch. We could replace all that with a > single standard implementation. > > Bah, maybe I shouldn't have pushed that bpf_jit code for ARM after all... ;-) ;-) ;-) Thanx, Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Sun, 01 Apr 2012 03:22:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:60986 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1903702Ab2DABWf (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2012 03:22:35 +0200 Received: from /spool/local by e33.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:22:28 -0600 Received: from d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.177) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:22:26 -0600 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9A71FF004A for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:22:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q311MNZR144190 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:22:24 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q311MMRm022984 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:22:23 -0600 Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W500 (sig-9-49-152-53.mts.ibm.com [9.49.152.53]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q311ML7p022961; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:22:22 -0600 Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W500 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B5E0BE4ABB; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:22:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:22:12 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m32r@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, dhowells@redhat.com, jejb@parisc-linux.org, linux390@de.ibm.com, x86@kernel.org, cmetcalf@tilera.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Simplify the Linux kernel by reducing its state space Message-ID: <20120401012212.GP2450@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20120331163321.GA15809@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120331223200.GA32482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120331223200.GA32482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12040101-2398-0000-0000-0000057BFD9B X-archive-position: 32849 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Return-Path: On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:32:00PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:33:21AM +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of > > parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain > > truth is that the incremental complexity of parallel programming over > > that of sequential programming is not as large as is commonly believed. > > Despite that you might have heard, the mind-numbing complexity of modern > > computer systems is not due so much to there being multiple CPUs, but > > rather to there being any CPUs at all. In short, for the ultimate in > > computer-system simplicity, the optimal choice is NR_CPUS=0. > > > > This commit therefore limits kernel builds to zero CPUs. This change > > has the beneficial side effect of rendering all kernel bugs harmless. > > Furthermore, this commit enables additional beneficial changes, for > > example, the removal of those parts of the kernel that are not needed > > when there are zero CPUs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner > > Great work, but I don't think you've gone far enough with this. > > What would really help is if you could consolidate all these NR_CPUS > definitions into one place so we don't have essentially the same thing > scattered across all these architectures. We're already doing this on > ARM across our platforms, and its about time such an approach was taken > across the entire kernel tree. > > It looks like the MIPS solution would be the best one to pick. > Could you rework your patch to do this please? > > While you're at it, you might like to consider that having zero CPUs > makes all this architecture support redundant, so maybe you've missed > a trick there - according to my count, we could get rid of almost 3 > million lines of code from arch. We could replace all that with a > single standard implementation. > > Bah, maybe I shouldn't have pushed that bpf_jit code for ARM after all... ;-) ;-) ;-) Thanx, Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com (e4.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e4.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6855EB6FEA for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 11:22:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e4.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:22:29 -0400 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF21338C8052 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q311MO1w308858 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:22:24 -0400 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q311MMRq022984 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:22:24 -0600 Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:22:12 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Simplify the Linux kernel by reducing its state space Message-ID: <20120401012212.GP2450@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20120331163321.GA15809@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120331223200.GA32482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20120331223200.GA32482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Cc: linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-m32r@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, jejb@parisc-linux.org, dhowells@redhat.com, linux390@de.ibm.com, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, cmetcalf@tilera.com, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:32:00PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:33:21AM +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of > > parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain > > truth is that the incremental complexity of parallel programming over > > that of sequential programming is not as large as is commonly believed. > > Despite that you might have heard, the mind-numbing complexity of modern > > computer systems is not due so much to there being multiple CPUs, but > > rather to there being any CPUs at all. In short, for the ultimate in > > computer-system simplicity, the optimal choice is NR_CPUS=0. > > > > This commit therefore limits kernel builds to zero CPUs. This change > > has the beneficial side effect of rendering all kernel bugs harmless. > > Furthermore, this commit enables additional beneficial changes, for > > example, the removal of those parts of the kernel that are not needed > > when there are zero CPUs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner > > Great work, but I don't think you've gone far enough with this. > > What would really help is if you could consolidate all these NR_CPUS > definitions into one place so we don't have essentially the same thing > scattered across all these architectures. We're already doing this on > ARM across our platforms, and its about time such an approach was taken > across the entire kernel tree. > > It looks like the MIPS solution would be the best one to pick. > Could you rework your patch to do this please? > > While you're at it, you might like to consider that having zero CPUs > makes all this architecture support redundant, so maybe you've missed > a trick there - according to my count, we could get rid of almost 3 > million lines of code from arch. We could replace all that with a > single standard implementation. > > Bah, maybe I shouldn't have pushed that bpf_jit code for ARM after all... ;-) ;-) ;-) Thanx, Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:22:12 -0700 Subject: [PATCH RFC] Simplify the Linux kernel by reducing its state space In-Reply-To: <20120331223200.GA32482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20120331163321.GA15809@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120331223200.GA32482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120401012212.GP2450@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:32:00PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:33:21AM +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of > > parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain > > truth is that the incremental complexity of parallel programming over > > that of sequential programming is not as large as is commonly believed. > > Despite that you might have heard, the mind-numbing complexity of modern > > computer systems is not due so much to there being multiple CPUs, but > > rather to there being any CPUs at all. In short, for the ultimate in > > computer-system simplicity, the optimal choice is NR_CPUS=0. > > > > This commit therefore limits kernel builds to zero CPUs. This change > > has the beneficial side effect of rendering all kernel bugs harmless. > > Furthermore, this commit enables additional beneficial changes, for > > example, the removal of those parts of the kernel that are not needed > > when there are zero CPUs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner > > Great work, but I don't think you've gone far enough with this. > > What would really help is if you could consolidate all these NR_CPUS > definitions into one place so we don't have essentially the same thing > scattered across all these architectures. We're already doing this on > ARM across our platforms, and its about time such an approach was taken > across the entire kernel tree. > > It looks like the MIPS solution would be the best one to pick. > Could you rework your patch to do this please? > > While you're at it, you might like to consider that having zero CPUs > makes all this architecture support redundant, so maybe you've missed > a trick there - according to my count, we could get rid of almost 3 > million lines of code from arch. We could replace all that with a > single standard implementation. > > Bah, maybe I shouldn't have pushed that bpf_jit code for ARM after all... ;-) ;-) ;-) Thanx, Paul