linux-pci.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@nexus-software.ie>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
	rientjes@google.com, bhelgaas@google.com, mingo@redhat.com,
	tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, jgross@suse.com,
	luto@amacapital.net, andy.shevchenko@gmail.com,
	thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com, JBeulich@suse.com,
	bp@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] x86: kconfig: remove X86_UP_IOAPIC
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:35:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150312153535.GN25035@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5500E992.60505@nexus-software.ie>

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:19:14AM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 11/03/15 23:10, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 
> ACK the concept - the logic to compile up APIC support is circuitous
> to say the least.

It took me a while to grok this and indeed the goal was to make it
much simpler to read, but at the same time to see if we can reach
a compromise to simplify it for 32-bit.

> Personally think we should just always compile up the APIC code if
> the arch declares support and let the bootstrap code interrogate
> CPUID.

This would be the *next* level of compromise to make, I felt comfortable
in raising the size compromise question for 32-bit but its not clear
to me if this is a general question which we can address for all x86.
There is indeed no performance pentalty for both so the question comes
down to tex size increase, and its why I provided the numbers.

My preference was to leave the optimization question for all x86 as
a rather secondary question *iff* we can agree on something for 32-bit.

> Who in 2015 is really running a system without an
> APIC/IO-APIC and tip-of-tree Linux and does that one user care about
> adding 12k to her kernel ? I suspect not and in any case can force
> the APIC off with a command line argument

I also figured this was the case, but figured it was safer to pose
the question for 32-bit. If indeed folks who produce the hardware
can conclude the size increase is reasonable for all platforms
given no performance penalty then we can surely keep this even
simpler -- I think its safer to ask this question for 32-bit and
leave only the larger picture questoin as an evolutionairy question.

> >@@ -899,6 +899,7 @@ config X86_UP_APIC
> >  	bool "Local APIC support on uniprocessors" if !PCI_MSI
> 
> Tried to apply this to torvalds-master to test :( Should it ? Which
> branch are you on here ?
> 
> Applying: x86: kconfig: remove X86_UP_IOAPIC
> error: patch failed: arch/x86/Kconfig:899
> error: arch/x86/Kconfig: patch does not apply
> Patch failed at 0001 x86: kconfig: remove X86_UP_IOAPIC

linux-next tag next-20150311

  Luis

  reply	other threads:[~2015-03-12 15:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-11 23:10 [PATCH v1 0/2] x86: simplify UP APIC conditions Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-03-11 23:10 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] x86: kconfig: remove X86_UP_IOAPIC Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-03-12  1:19   ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2015-03-12 15:35     ` Luis R. Rodriguez [this message]
2015-03-12  5:36   ` David Rientjes
2015-03-12 15:26     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-03-11 23:10 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] x86: kconfig: remove X86_UP_APIC Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-03-12  8:42   ` Jan Beulich
     [not found]   ` <55015F690200007800068D86@suse.com>
2015-03-12 15:18     ` Luis R. Rodriguez

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150312153535.GN25035@wotan.suse.de \
    --to=mcgrof@suse.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=bp@suse.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jgross@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=mcgrof@do-not-panic.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pure.logic@nexus-software.ie \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).