Single MIPS kernel

Single MIPS kernel

[Ralf Baechle]

This question comes up every once in a while and I've also been approached
during ELCE in Düsseldorf why there is no single MIPS kernel for all
platforms, so I thought I should post a writeup on the topic.

The primary reason is that MIPS kernels are using non-PIC kernels.  This
means code is linked to a particular absolute address.  The link address
depends on the memory range available on a particular system's available
memory range - there is no one size that fits all systems, not even a
large fraction of supported systems.

What does it take to make kernels relocatable?  A current kernel is not
relocatable.  One might do something along the lines of userland where
the dynamic linker is in a similar situation and needs to first relocate
itself before it can perform its actual job.

Two approaches.  First keeping the non-PIC code.  That requires keeping
the entire relocation.  A lasat_defconfig vmlinux is 5733098 bytes but
built with --emit-relocs to keep the reloc information in the final
binary the vmlinux file grows to 7217342 bytes!  A quick look at the
reloc sections:

Section Headers:
  [Nr] Name              Type            Addr     Off    Size   ES Flg Lk Inf Al
  [ 2] .rel.text         REL             00000000 461538 0eedf8 08     34   1  4
  [ 4] .rel__ex_table    REL             00000000 550330 0040e0 08     34   3  4
  [ 8] .rel.rodata       REL             00000000 554410 0310e0 08     34   7  4
  [10] .rel.pci_fixup    REL             00000000 5854f0 000998 08     34   9  4
  [12] .rel__ksymtab     REL             00000000 585e88 00b3b0 08     34  11  4
  [14] .rel__ksymtab_gpl REL             00000000 591238 007180 08     34  13  4
  [17] .rel__param       REL             00000000 5983b8 000858 08     34  16  4
  [19] .rel__modver      REL             00000000 598c10 000038 08     34  18  4
  [21] .rel.data         REL             00000000 598c48 00a130 08     34  20  4
  [23] .rel.init.text    REL             00000000 5a2d78 00f008 08     34  22  4
  [25] .rel.init.data    REL             00000000 5b1d80 001d08 08     34  24  4
  [27] .rel.exit.text    REL             00000000 5b3a88 000b78 08     34  26  4

The approach could probably be optimized but as a first order approximation
this demonstrates there would be plenty of bloat to the binary.  Positive
side of this approach: no runtime penalty.

Alternatively: make the kernel PIC code.  Over the thumb that'd going to
inflate the kernel by 10 or 15%.  Less than above approach but there'd
also be significant runtime overhead.  Probably nothing for a world where
benchmarks like network performance on 64 byte packets decide on the
fate of a product on the market.

Obviously there is the difference between 32 and 64 bit kernels.  64 bit
uses additional instructions that are not available on 32 bit processors
and using just 32 bit instructions won't fly on 64 bit kernels.

Hardware detection.  That's all easy in a device tree world but in all
reality many of the existing systems don't support device tree yet so a
generic kernel would have to figure out what platform it's running on
which would end up in something like an ISA style device probe.

  Ralf

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[John Crispin]

Hi Ralf,

On 22/10/2014 10:34, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> This question comes up every once in a while and I've also been
> approached during ELCE in Düsseldorf why there is no single MIPS
> kernel for all platforms, so I thought I should post a writeup on
> the topic.
> 

for the SoCs supported by OpenWrt this is a no-go. we are already
having a hard time fighting bloat. to get the images to fit we need to
already build device specific images that only hold the DT, drivers,
... that a specific board needs. having a kernel that can boot on X
devices wont even fit into flash and if it does there is not space
left for the userland.

I think this feature is only interesting for the older platforms and
the upcoming mobile SoC based in MIPS. i.e. the users are debian and
android type device.

	John

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[Florian Fainelli]

On 10/22/2014 03:53 AM, John Crispin wrote:
> Hi Ralf,
> 
> On 22/10/2014 10:34, Ralf Baechle wrote:
>> This question comes up every once in a while and I've also been
>> approached during ELCE in Düsseldorf why there is no single MIPS
>> kernel for all platforms, so I thought I should post a writeup on
>> the topic.
>>
> 
> for the SoCs supported by OpenWrt this is a no-go. we are already
> having a hard time fighting bloat. to get the images to fit we need to
> already build device specific images that only hold the DT, drivers,
> ... that a specific board needs. having a kernel that can boot on X
> devices wont even fit into flash and if it does there is not space
> left for the userland.

A multi-platform kernel should allow to compile in/out specific
platforms (like what ARM does), such that we can still achieve a small
kernel goal in OpenWrt.

> 
> I think this feature is only interesting for the older platforms and
> the upcoming mobile SoC based in MIPS. i.e. the users are debian and
> android type device.

You mean, older systems such as Sibyte, the SGI's IPxx and similar?
Those may have memory architecture requirements (spaces.h) that make it
difficult if possible to support.
--
Florian

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[David Daney]

On 10/22/2014 01:34 AM, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> This question comes up every once in a while and I've also been approached
> during ELCE in Düsseldorf why there is no single MIPS kernel for all
> platforms, so I thought I should post a writeup on the topic.
>
> The primary reason is that MIPS kernels are using non-PIC kernels.  This
> means code is linked to a particular absolute address.  The link address
> depends on the memory range available on a particular system's available
> memory range - there is no one size that fits all systems, not even a
> large fraction of supported systems.
>

Another reason is that the protocol between the bootloader and the 
kernel varies by platform.  So you would have to have several different 
entry points, one for each booting protocol.

I am not sure how the bootloaders would know which entry point to use.

David Daney

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[David Daney]

On 10/22/2014 01:34 AM, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> This question comes up every once in a while and I've also been approached
> during ELCE in Düsseldorf why there is no single MIPS kernel for all
> platforms, so I thought I should post a writeup on the topic.
>
> The primary reason is that MIPS kernels are using non-PIC kernels.  This
> means code is linked to a particular absolute address.  The link address
> depends on the memory range available on a particular system's available
> memory range - there is no one size that fits all systems, not even a
> large fraction of supported systems.

There is another reason to have a relocatable kernel:  The security 
people are starting to demand it so that they can randomize the load 
address.

>
> What does it take to make kernels relocatable?  A current kernel is not
> relocatable.  One might do something along the lines of userland where
> the dynamic linker is in a similar situation and needs to first relocate
> itself before it can perform its actual job.
>
> Two approaches.  First keeping the non-PIC code.  That requires keeping
> the entire relocation.  A lasat_defconfig vmlinux is 5733098 bytes but
> built with --emit-relocs to keep the reloc information in the final
> binary the vmlinux file grows to 7217342 bytes!  A quick look at the
> reloc sections:
>
> Section Headers:
>    [Nr] Name              Type            Addr     Off    Size   ES Flg Lk Inf Al
>    [ 2] .rel.text         REL             00000000 461538 0eedf8 08     34   1  4
>    [ 4] .rel__ex_table    REL             00000000 550330 0040e0 08     34   3  4
>    [ 8] .rel.rodata       REL             00000000 554410 0310e0 08     34   7  4
>    [10] .rel.pci_fixup    REL             00000000 5854f0 000998 08     34   9  4
>    [12] .rel__ksymtab     REL             00000000 585e88 00b3b0 08     34  11  4
>    [14] .rel__ksymtab_gpl REL             00000000 591238 007180 08     34  13  4
>    [17] .rel__param       REL             00000000 5983b8 000858 08     34  16  4
>    [19] .rel__modver      REL             00000000 598c10 000038 08     34  18  4
>    [21] .rel.data         REL             00000000 598c48 00a130 08     34  20  4
>    [23] .rel.init.text    REL             00000000 5a2d78 00f008 08     34  22  4
>    [25] .rel.init.data    REL             00000000 5b1d80 001d08 08     34  24  4
>    [27] .rel.exit.text    REL             00000000 5b3a88 000b78 08     34  26  4
>
> The approach could probably be optimized but as a first order approximation
> this demonstrates there would be plenty of bloat to the binary.  Positive
> side of this approach: no runtime penalty.
>

This is the approach I was thinking of taking.  There would be a small 
PIC wrapper that applied the relocations, and then passed control to the 
real entry point.

We would have to be careful of the ex_table, as that is now sorted at 
build time.  For that, we could go to the scheme used by x86, and have 
that addresses in the ex_table be relative, build time sorting is 
already working for x86 relocatable kernels.

David Daney.

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[Ralf Baechle]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:56:05AM -0700, David Daney wrote:

> Another reason is that the protocol between the bootloader and the kernel
> varies by platform.  So you would have to have several different entry
> points, one for each booting protocol.
> 
> I am not sure how the bootloaders would know which entry point to use.

That's where I foresaw the needs for the ISA style platform probe right
at the kernel entry point before fanning out to a platform-specific
entry point.

Since we already support compressed kernels I'm wondering if relocation
might also be performed by the compression wrapper along with the
hardware probe.  That would leave the vmlinux itself untouched and
the wrapper could be installed on the target.

It's just that all this for the sake of a unified kernel images seems
way to painful!

  Ralf

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Ralf Baechle wrote:

> > Another reason is that the protocol between the bootloader and the kernel
> > varies by platform.  So you would have to have several different entry
> > points, one for each booting protocol.
> > 
> > I am not sure how the bootloaders would know which entry point to use.
> 
> That's where I foresaw the needs for the ISA style platform probe right
> at the kernel entry point before fanning out to a platform-specific
> entry point.
> 
> Since we already support compressed kernels I'm wondering if relocation
> might also be performed by the compression wrapper along with the
> hardware probe.  That would leave the vmlinux itself untouched and
> the wrapper could be installed on the target.

 Wouldn't it make sense to make a unified kernel virtually mapped?  That 
would avoid the issue with RAM being present at different locations across 
systems and also if big pages were used, that I believe are available 
almost universally across the MIPS family, any performance hit would be 
minimal.  There would be hardly any increase in the binary image size too.  
Run-time mappings such as `kmalloc' or `ioremap' could continue using 
unmapped segments.

 Thoughts?

  Maciej

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[Ralf Baechle]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:03:01AM -0700, David Daney wrote:

> There is another reason to have a relocatable kernel:  The security people
> are starting to demand it so that they can randomize the load address.

That may work for some platforms - but in the MIPS world we still have to
deal with very claustrophobic systems which barely leave any space to
move a kernel around.

> This is the approach I was thinking of taking.  There would be a small PIC
> wrapper that applied the relocations, and then passed control to the real
> entry point.
> 
> We would have to be careful of the ex_table, as that is now sorted at build
> time.  For that, we could go to the scheme used by x86, and have that
> addresses in the ex_table be relative, build time sorting is already working
> for x86 relocatable kernels.

That's probably more of an implementation detail.  I'm more concerned about
the overall bloat.  I think many embedded users are so addivted to benchmark
results that this going to make or break the whole scheme.

  Ralf

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[Ralf Baechle]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:19:07PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

> > > Another reason is that the protocol between the bootloader and the kernel
> > > varies by platform.  So you would have to have several different entry
> > > points, one for each booting protocol.
> > > 
> > > I am not sure how the bootloaders would know which entry point to use.
> > 
> > That's where I foresaw the needs for the ISA style platform probe right
> > at the kernel entry point before fanning out to a platform-specific
> > entry point.
> > 
> > Since we already support compressed kernels I'm wondering if relocation
> > might also be performed by the compression wrapper along with the
> > hardware probe.  That would leave the vmlinux itself untouched and
> > the wrapper could be installed on the target.
> 
>  Wouldn't it make sense to make a unified kernel virtually mapped?  That 
> would avoid the issue with RAM being present at different locations across 
> systems and also if big pages were used, that I believe are available 
> almost universally across the MIPS family, any performance hit would be 
> minimal.  There would be hardly any increase in the binary image size too.  
> Run-time mappings such as `kmalloc' or `ioremap' could continue using 
> unmapped segments.

I think some MIPS III CPUs were restricted to just 4MB max. page size.
NEC VR4xxx I think.  Still a pair would map 8MB which on the affected
small memory systems should suffice.  16MB, 64MB are more typical sizes.

R3000 is a different kettle.  To 4k or not to 4k is not a question ;-)

Now mapping the kernel alone wouldn't solve the security issue mentioned
by David.  The image would still lie around in KSEG0 / XKPHYS for whatever
wants to run over so that should ideally also be a flexible address.

Otoh the mapped kernel certainly would have the lowest size overhead.
I have faint memories of restrictions for TLB instructions or was it
TLB exception handlers into mapped space, would have to do some rtfming
on that topic.

Years ago I did test the impact of one less available TLB entry with
lmbench; the loss was around 2%.  That was on a CPU with 64 entries.

  Ralf

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[David Daney]

On 10/22/2014 01:42 PM, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:19:07PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
>>>> Another reason is that the protocol between the bootloader and the kernel
>>>> varies by platform.  So you would have to have several different entry
>>>> points, one for each booting protocol.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure how the bootloaders would know which entry point to use.
>>>
>>> That's where I foresaw the needs for the ISA style platform probe right
>>> at the kernel entry point before fanning out to a platform-specific
>>> entry point.
>>>
>>> Since we already support compressed kernels I'm wondering if relocation
>>> might also be performed by the compression wrapper along with the
>>> hardware probe.  That would leave the vmlinux itself untouched and
>>> the wrapper could be installed on the target.
>>
>>   Wouldn't it make sense to make a unified kernel virtually mapped?  That
>> would avoid the issue with RAM being present at different locations across
>> systems and also if big pages were used, that I believe are available
>> almost universally across the MIPS family, any performance hit would be
>> minimal.  There would be hardly any increase in the binary image size too.
>> Run-time mappings such as `kmalloc' or `ioremap' could continue using
>> unmapped segments.
>
> I think some MIPS III CPUs were restricted to just 4MB max. page size.
> NEC VR4xxx I think.  Still a pair would map 8MB which on the affected
> small memory systems should suffice.  16MB, 64MB are more typical sizes.
>
> R3000 is a different kettle.  To 4k or not to 4k is not a question ;-)
>
> Now mapping the kernel alone wouldn't solve the security issue mentioned
> by David.  The image would still lie around in KSEG0 / XKPHYS for whatever
> wants to run over so that should ideally also be a flexible address.
>
> Otoh the mapped kernel certainly would have the lowest size overhead.
> I have faint memories of restrictions for TLB instructions or was it
> TLB exception handlers into mapped space, would have to do some rtfming
> on that topic.
>
> Years ago I did test the impact of one less available TLB entry with
> lmbench; the loss was around 2%.  That was on a CPU with 64 entries.
>

We have a private patch that does exactly this, the main motivation was 
to place the kernel in the same virtual address 256MB region as the 
modules, so that a direct calling sequence can be used in modules.

The resulting module code is much faster, so depending on the work load 
it may be a performance win.  We see things like IPv6 forwarding 
improving something like 6% when IPv6 is built as a module.

Also we have many more TLB entries (128, or 256) so losing one is not a 
big deal.

David Daney

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[James Hogan]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:42:09PM +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:19:07PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> >  Wouldn't it make sense to make a unified kernel virtually mapped?  That 
> > would avoid the issue with RAM being present at different locations across 
> > systems and also if big pages were used, that I believe are available 
> > almost universally across the MIPS family, any performance hit would be 
> > minimal.  There would be hardly any increase in the binary image size too.  
> > Run-time mappings such as `kmalloc' or `ioremap' could continue using 
> > unmapped segments.

> Otoh the mapped kernel certainly would have the lowest size overhead.
> I have faint memories of restrictions for TLB instructions or was it
> TLB exception handlers into mapped space, would have to do some rtfming
> on that topic.

Yeh, KVM puts all tlb handling in arch/mips/kvm/tlb.c, which is built
statically rather than being included in the kvm kernel module, exactly
for this reason, so that it resides in unmapped memory space.

You'd have to guarantee not to get a TLB exception while the TLB
registers contain important values, since they'll get clobbered by the
taking of the exception itself (e.g. EntryHi gets set to failing
address, EntryLo* undefined), or the TLB entry pointed to by CP0_Index
may be replaced.

There's always CP0_Wired - its use in the kernel is a bit of a mess atm
IIRC.

Cheers
James

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[James Hogan]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:42:09PM +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:19:07PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> >  Wouldn't it make sense to make a unified kernel virtually mapped?  That 
> > would avoid the issue with RAM being present at different locations across 
> > systems and also if big pages were used, that I believe are available 
> > almost universally across the MIPS family, any performance hit would be 
> > minimal.  There would be hardly any increase in the binary image size too.  
> > Run-time mappings such as `kmalloc' or `ioremap' could continue using 
> > unmapped segments.

> Otoh the mapped kernel certainly would have the lowest size overhead.
> I have faint memories of restrictions for TLB instructions or was it
> TLB exception handlers into mapped space, would have to do some rtfming
> on that topic.

Yeh, KVM puts all tlb handling in arch/mips/kvm/tlb.c, which is built
statically rather than being included in the kvm kernel module, exactly
for this reason, so that it resides in unmapped memory space.

You'd have to guarantee not to get a TLB exception while the TLB
registers contain important values, since they'll get clobbered by the
taking of the exception itself (e.g. EntryHi gets set to failing
address, EntryLo* undefined), or the TLB entry pointed to by CP0_Index
may be replaced.

There's always CP0_Wired - its use in the kernel is a bit of a mess atm
IIRC.

Cheers
James

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[Ben Hutchings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1645 bytes --]

On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 21:20 +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:03:01AM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> 
> > There is another reason to have a relocatable kernel:  The security people
> > are starting to demand it so that they can randomize the load address.
> 
> That may work for some platforms - but in the MIPS world we still have to
> deal with very claustrophobic systems which barely leave any space to
> move a kernel around.
> 
> > This is the approach I was thinking of taking.  There would be a small PIC
> > wrapper that applied the relocations, and then passed control to the real
> > entry point.
> > 
> > We would have to be careful of the ex_table, as that is now sorted at build
> > time.  For that, we could go to the scheme used by x86, and have that
> > addresses in the ex_table be relative, build time sorting is already working
> > for x86 relocatable kernels.
> 
> That's probably more of an implementation detail.  I'm more concerned about
> the overall bloat.  I think many embedded users are so addivted to benchmark
> results that this going to make or break the whole scheme.

If you can make relocation a configuration option (as on x86), it would
allow distributions to build multiplatform kernels without preventing
embedded users from building a kernel optimised for their specific
system.  But I know very little about MIPS or how intrusive the changes
for relocation would have to be.  Perhaps it would be too much of a
maintenance burden to make this an option.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism. - Harrison

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 811 bytes --]

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[David Daney]

On 10/22/2014 02:53 PM, James Hogan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:42:09PM +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:19:07PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>>>   Wouldn't it make sense to make a unified kernel virtually mapped?  That
>>> would avoid the issue with RAM being present at different locations across
>>> systems and also if big pages were used, that I believe are available
>>> almost universally across the MIPS family, any performance hit would be
>>> minimal.  There would be hardly any increase in the binary image size too.
>>> Run-time mappings such as `kmalloc' or `ioremap' could continue using
>>> unmapped segments.
>
>> Otoh the mapped kernel certainly would have the lowest size overhead.
>> I have faint memories of restrictions for TLB instructions or was it
>> TLB exception handlers into mapped space, would have to do some rtfming
>> on that topic.
>
> Yeh, KVM puts all tlb handling in arch/mips/kvm/tlb.c, which is built
> statically rather than being included in the kvm kernel module, exactly
> for this reason, so that it resides in unmapped memory space.
>
> You'd have to guarantee not to get a TLB exception while the TLB
> registers contain important values, since they'll get clobbered by the
> taking of the exception itself (e.g. EntryHi gets set to failing
> address, EntryLo* undefined), or the TLB entry pointed to by CP0_Index
> may be replaced.
>
> There's always CP0_Wired - its use in the kernel is a bit of a mess atm
> IIRC.
>

The current kernel.org kernel respects CP0_Wired.  We use a single TLB 
entry (index 0) to map the entire kernel, and set CP0_Wired accordingly. 
  Everything works.

EBase still points to an unmapped address, so exception handlers still 
work as before, except they may have to use more code to directly call 
into the kernel due to the 256MB jump range thing.  The general 
exception handler looks up the addresses in a table to that is not 
effected, only if you have a dedicated interrupt vector, do you have to 
use an indirect jump to reach the kernel.

David Daney

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[Ralf Baechle]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:15:40PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:

> > 
> > That's probably more of an implementation detail.  I'm more concerned about
> > the overall bloat.  I think many embedded users are so addivted to benchmark
> > results that this going to make or break the whole scheme.
> 
> If you can make relocation a configuration option (as on x86), it would
> allow distributions to build multiplatform kernels without preventing
> embedded users from building a kernel optimised for their specific
> system.  But I know very little about MIPS or how intrusive the changes
> for relocation would have to be.  Perhaps it would be too much of a
> maintenance burden to make this an option.

The scope of the changes is relativly limited - we're much more concerned
about the impact on binary size, memory size or performance of the
various approaches under discussion.

I wonder kernels for which platforms would Debian want to unify?

  Ralf

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[Ben Hutchings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3054 bytes --]

On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 01:22 +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:15:40PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > That's probably more of an implementation detail.  I'm more concerned about
> > > the overall bloat.  I think many embedded users are so addivted to benchmark
> > > results that this going to make or break the whole scheme.
> > 
> > If you can make relocation a configuration option (as on x86), it would
> > allow distributions to build multiplatform kernels without preventing
> > embedded users from building a kernel optimised for their specific
> > system.  But I know very little about MIPS or how intrusive the changes
> > for relocation would have to be.  Perhaps it would be too much of a
> > maintenance burden to make this an option.
> 
> The scope of the changes is relativly limited - we're much more concerned
> about the impact on binary size, memory size or performance of the
> various approaches under discussion.
> 
> I wonder kernels for which platforms would Debian want to unify?

I don't have high expectations for being able to unify those we
currently support.  Realistically, I expect that most development effort
will go into new platforms.  (What we saw with ARM was that
multi-platform was implemented for most ARMv7 platforms (for which we
now need only 2 configurations) but only slowly for older chips (4
configurations, and that's after dropping 2 platforms).)

Anyway, we have one 32-bit configuration for each byte order
(4kc-malta), and the following 64-bit configurations:

[big-endian]
r4k-ip22:      CONFIG_SGI_IP22, CONFIG_CPU_R4X00
r5k-ip32:      CONFIG_SGI_IP32, CONFIG_CPU_R5000
sb1-bcm91250a: CONFIG_SIBYTE_SWARM, CONFIG_CPU_SB1
5kc-malta:     CONFIG_MIPS_MALTA, CONFIG_CPU_MIPS64_R1
octeon:        CONFIG_CAVIUM_OCTEON_SOC

[little-endian]
sb1-bcm91250a: CONFIG_SIBYTE_SWARM, CONFIG_CPU_SB1
5kc-malta:     CONFIG_MIPS_MALTA, CONFIG_CPU_MIPS64_R1
loongson-2e:   CONFIG_MACH_LOONGSON, CONFIG_LEMOTE_FULOONG2E
loongson-2f:   CONFIG_MACH_LOONGSON, CONFIG_LEMOTE_MACH2F
loongson-3:    CONFIG_MACH_LOONGSON, CONFIG_LOONGSON_MACH3X

In general, I want our kernel packages to support any hardware that is
or has been generally available to buy, that can feasibly run a general
purpose distribution.  I'm somewhat hopeful that Prpl members will be
introducing new platforms that fit this description in the near future.

But I also want the packages to build natively in a few hours on each
architecture.  Currently, it takes about 17 hours on little-endian
(Loongson 3A, quad-core) and longer on big-endian (Octeon v0.3, 6 cores
used).  So I can't accept a further increase in the number of
configurations as new MIPS platforms appear.  Without multi-platform
support, we will have to drop one platform for each one we add, so we'll
have to be quite picky about adding them.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Q.  Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or apathy?
A.  I don't know and I couldn't care less.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 811 bytes --]

Re: Single MIPS kernel

[Joshua Kinard]

On 10/22/2014 21:02, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 01:22 +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:15:40PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> That's probably more of an implementation detail.  I'm more concerned about
>>>> the overall bloat.  I think many embedded users are so addivted to benchmark
>>>> results that this going to make or break the whole scheme.
>>>
>>> If you can make relocation a configuration option (as on x86), it would
>>> allow distributions to build multiplatform kernels without preventing
>>> embedded users from building a kernel optimised for their specific
>>> system.  But I know very little about MIPS or how intrusive the changes
>>> for relocation would have to be.  Perhaps it would be too much of a
>>> maintenance burden to make this an option.
>>
>> The scope of the changes is relativly limited - we're much more concerned
>> about the impact on binary size, memory size or performance of the
>> various approaches under discussion.
>>
>> I wonder kernels for which platforms would Debian want to unify?
> 
> I don't have high expectations for being able to unify those we
> currently support.  Realistically, I expect that most development effort
> will go into new platforms.  (What we saw with ARM was that
> multi-platform was implemented for most ARMv7 platforms (for which we
> now need only 2 configurations) but only slowly for older chips (4
> configurations, and that's after dropping 2 platforms).)
> 
> Anyway, we have one 32-bit configuration for each byte order
> (4kc-malta), and the following 64-bit configurations:
> 
> [big-endian]
> r4k-ip22:      CONFIG_SGI_IP22, CONFIG_CPU_R4X00
> r5k-ip32:      CONFIG_SGI_IP32, CONFIG_CPU_R5000

As far as I know, IRIX includes kernels specific to each SGI system (IPxx), but
it seems they're CPU agnostic.  They are relocatable, though.  Been awhile
since I watched sash boot followed by an IRIX kernel, but it does 3-4
relocations before finally booting.  So a relocatable MIPS kernel on the SGI
platforms seems possible.  Probably requires arcane knowledge of ARCS, though.

Bootloader-wise, Stan's 'arcload' can handle booting multiple kernels across
various SGI platforms.  We used it on the Gentoo SGI LiveCD back in 2006 to
create a single CD that could boot on IP22, IP27, IP30, & IP32, using different
kernels for each system and CPU (I think there was one volume header slot left
at the end for arcload itself).

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And our
lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic