Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>]

Hi Linus!

On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 10:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sept 2023 at 06:48, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> It can definitely be problematic.
> 
> Not the Kconfig file part, and not the preempt count part itself.
> 
> But the fact that it has never been used and tested means that there
> might be tons of "this architecture code knows it's not preemptible,
> because this architecture doesn't support preemption".
> 
> So you may have basic architecture code that simply doesn't have the
> "preempt_disable()/enable()" pairs that it needs.
> 
> PeterZ mentioned the generic entry code, which does this for the entry
> path. But it actually goes much deeper: just do a
> 
>     git grep preempt_disable arch/x86/kernel
> 
> and then do the same for some other architectures.
> 
> Looking at alpha, for example, there *are* hits for it, so at least
> some of the code there clearly *tries* to do it. But does it cover all
> the required parts? If it's never been tested, I'd be surprised if
> it's all just ready to go.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

> I do think we'd need to basically continue to support ARCH_NO_PREEMPT
> - and such architectures migth end up with the worst-cast latencies of
> only scheduling at return to user space.

Great to hear, thank you.

And, yes, eventually I would be happy to help get alpha and m68k converted.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer
`. `'   Physicist
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913