Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALCETrXoRAibsbWa9nfbDrt0iEuebMnCMhSFg-d9W-J2g8mDjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wi_Kp=3XmGDdzmadzFSPFvuL+aAJ6ZPAR=o4z=KwYT2vw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wi_Kp=3XmGDdzmadzFSPFvuL+aAJ6ZPAR=o4z=KwYT2vw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Date:   Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:38:52 +0800
Message-ID: <CAOesGMgu1i3p7XMZuCEtj63T-ST_jh+BfaHy-K6LhgqNriKHAA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Can we drop upstream Linux x32 support?
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     luto@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, fweimer@redhat.com,
        Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>, hjl.tools@gmail.com,
        dalias@libc.org, x32@buildd.debian.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 9:40 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:23 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm seriously considering sending a patch to remove x32 support from
> > upstream Linux.  Here are some problems with it:
>
> I talked to Arnd (I think - we were talking about all the crazy ABI's,
> but maybe it was with somebody else) about exactly this in Edinburgh.
>
> Apparently the main real use case is for extreme benchmarking. It's
> the only use-case where the complexity of maintaining a whole
> development environment and distro is worth it, it seems. Apparently a
> number of Spec submissions have been done with the x32 model.
>
> I'm not opposed to trying to sunset the support, but let's see who complains..

I'm just a single user. I do rely on it though, FWIW.

I hadn't finished my benchmarking in Edinburgh, but for my new machine
that does kernel builds 24/7, I ended up going with x32 userspace (in
a container).

Main reason is that it's a free ~10% improvement in runtime over
64-bit. I.e. GCC-as-a-workload is quite a bit faster as x32,
supposedly mostly due to smaller D cache footprints (I ran out of
cycles to tinker with back and forth perf data collection and settled
down on just running it).

Running classic 32-bit (i386? i686? whatever it's called) is about
half as good. I.e. even then I get a ~5% performance win. Less than
x32, but still better than 64-bit userspace.


-Olof