Received: by 2002:a25:8b91:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp1281193ybl; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 21:37:23 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxu1dYKY/QGaIFVOJaASxXbtfd9wSGeoq8Jh6OomXc7yx4XfTreofWBBiWrjOnc7zetaRNW X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7495:: with SMTP id t21mr5491917otk.86.1575524243513; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 21:37:23 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1575524243; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ea57N8b7q1y0E0YOgesMmwrHCFm7TYvVcvQkTSQIgWOGu54uiMdiCJNYQ/rRi/PRpj zXPboog91u5e4z0tE40a+oh29XIptkpeOSg4zejNm5Jcs1Lh/aE2ValLQJStC4/3VRhH to/Dk47sOdZU9D8mN2GlLFgn79Ohf+7/4KGaCuqwZ6FNnxCnQWfgHN//lAmajFNhgCn6 E4fl+NC/pEkox9nks8n7NsFhe51DXpiMdJfxEh/lPbLMuWWTbOAd7j88d6Wl4ogvtpjT CetJvyckahEVJcDt0wwszirIPWulAkKFYqJX3rHIT7ewhF7SmiDI212uutMAcU9RwBRD 9bdA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=KWeVLA+Lco2PS6ChZN6Zdh3HiL42eMKEtVIMaYS087k=; b=iLILjfc4Wbo+DBP5I4l+Osj0kjn1+OSEldpfP/IwBDkRJAbtKpZJH7FFo8xCDMLye+ aN17+WHUoQDuofKp9huBuNkomY6zObOrLicEOu+ilorH9USyfIirzJ1O3KjyN2YqJv4h g1yjhJfaw8Ufj3b7995jTKCUHH+W/QX6Hk2i9dIfj19eL/n92tOt2oupgzAKwB0nEZTa yUzexsO5x4p5rx2zeODZoNk8ocSJ5e+U/Wwpnd97hMqxflihHF7YqwVd86EKlwBThrbu ri4dWsCbPsagYrC93OpujGQf+Hf4HqFgSC1XwgUKRToAtOf16oq7JumZxHEXeu3tRXm4 SsUA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=iSEPzrPK; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id d133si127225oif.206.2019.12.04.21.37.11; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 21:37:23 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=iSEPzrPK; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726088AbfLEFgM (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 5 Dec 2019 00:36:12 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com ([209.85.221.67]:43379 "EHLO mail-wr1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725905AbfLEFgM (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Dec 2019 00:36:12 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id d16so1880934wre.10 for ; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 21:36:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KWeVLA+Lco2PS6ChZN6Zdh3HiL42eMKEtVIMaYS087k=; b=iSEPzrPKtrYXwDLHNsOC/7aP1sXXYyoVLr4k0hjJpp7I0+czzzGISbfd4MXNVKE/4U EqFJmW2hjQh9YQACl0izw6q1PETP2l8hdKrpr6xVxniLhj7ib7lQszHtDFid37kRvl+k 22xL5G68WoD/S8Q524AlG2AWKndiWh+xUZ5ZLeNhn5i8kaYEdHj1R4PQITayApKcbJ7r z8XcsN8h+kBToxkaVsZfxCNqn7grswtPwjvxlYT/k7OUotxWM9R+3HdS5az3m93gG58C X2/jKCJJrELJfeERLHjEe93jpz6apyO0W/TwQ9pkYVkcWAcpbrx14If+gcnLOhcubyQg oONQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KWeVLA+Lco2PS6ChZN6Zdh3HiL42eMKEtVIMaYS087k=; b=IH/PiqNYcXvWbZPpe7fK56QC/ULM2AIq9xXIaOWVvohn3f2/02I5NJ9vCU1Jp9TxgF YjVmPbWuY98L/y0LWVhZCcU3r239hHB1cqnXfyHAFOL1GhKeOZMOg6IoC5L9dcMpBJBK /O13IV9Bdptbo7UUIOuy83mmWv5y90TjaHxKsE6FL8M0Zi0H8iHX5CD9rAF9rxciS9po j5LPtomJXg0BafeH0tfOeLjXaazzs2u7Yh/Vkl36hrs2gCYbxB4T96PH9xQ4akBMi3YM tmAOaMcM2cO0foI1pQ+jwaZ0MD8X2LAiNLMi0lJgo7uP8aSIHTa2ZhPR0GLg+5lSJBZL Ad3A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU4DQNU/6iZYriFUGYx/ozfxaNyxGt8eV+X4hjD7I41npS6VuIV zGSwNG+I9tPJ6PeOxw5uReHx9Lok2B/2CVjUp7s= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4c85:: with SMTP id z5mr7673956wrs.42.1575524169206; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 21:36:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9044bad02aa6553cdb2523294500b50fccf3fd2a.camel@wdc.com> <81530734312456aab8b9625d7e9bb071c43db1c5.camel@wdc.com> <84c4ee600c0dd235a0fcc257115807af7207b5f6.camel@wdc.com> In-Reply-To: <84c4ee600c0dd235a0fcc257115807af7207b5f6.camel@wdc.com> From: David Abdurachmanov Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 07:35:32 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Second set of RISC-V updates for v5.5-rc1 To: Alistair Francis Cc: "paul.walmsley@sifive.com" , "anup@brainfault.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Atish Patra , "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" , "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" , "hch@lst.de" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 5:58 AM Alistair Francis wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 18:54 -0800, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, Alistair Francis wrote: > > > > > That is just not what happens though. > > > > > > It is too much to expect every distro to maintain a defconfig for > > > RISC- > > > V. > > > > The major Linux distributions maintain their own kernel > > configuration > > files, completely ignoring kernel defconfigs. This has been so for a > > long > > time. > > That might be true for the traditional "desktop" distros, but embedded > distros (the main target for RISC-V at the moment) don't generally do > this. I can confirm that Fedora/CentOS/RHEL do not depend on default config in kernel. Same seems to apply to Ubuntu, Arch and probably others. We maintain our own configs. > > > > > > Which is why we currently use the defconfig as a base and apply > > > extra > > > features that distro want on top. > > > > As you know, since you've worked on some of the distribution builder > > frameworks (not distributions) like OE and Buildroot, those build > > systems > > have sophisticated kernel configuration patching and override systems > > that > > can disable the debug options if the maintainers think it's a good > > idea to > > do that. > > Yes they do. As I said, we start with the defconfig and then apply > config changes on top. Every diversion is a maintainence burden so > where possible we don't make any changed. All of the QEMU machines > currently don't have config changes (and hopefully never will) as it's > a pain to maintain. > > > > > You've contributed to both Buildroot and OE meta-riscv RISC-V kernel > > configuration fragments yourself, so this shouldn't be a problem for > > you > > if you disagree with our choices here. For example, here's an > > example of > > how to patch defconfig directives out in Buildroot: > > > > > > https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/tree/board/qemu/csky/linux-ck807.config.fragment#n3 > > > > I'm assuming you don't need an example for meta-riscv, since you've > > already contributed RISC-V-related kernel configuration fragments to > > that > > repository. > > As I stated, this is possible. It's just a pain to maintain and for the > QEMU machines will probably not happen. > > We are trying to remove RISC-V specific changes, not add more. > > > > > > Expecting every distro to have a kernel developers level of > > > knowledge > > > about configuring Kconfigs is just unrealistic. > > > > I think it's false that only kernel developers know how to disable > > debug > > options in Kconfig files. As far as the underlying premise that one > > shouldn't expect distribution maintainers to know how to change > > Kconfig > > options, we'll just have to agree to disagree. > > Do you really expect every disto to follow all of the kernel changes > and generate their own config based on what happened in the kernel tree > since the last release? We don't all just spend our days adjusting to > the Linux kernel. I cannot talk for all distros (there are too many), but major desktop distributions do that. For the 1st few RCs of a new kernel version I will be adjusting Fedora/RISCV configuration based on whatever changes land. Of course looking at default defconfig is part of that process. > > This is espicially true for RISC-V as it's new and constantly changing. > > > > > > > distros and benchmarkers will create their own Kconfigs for their > > > > needs. > > > > > > Like I said, that isn't true. After this patch is applied (and it > > > makes > > > it to a release) all OE users will now have a slower RISC-V kernel. > > > > OE doesn't have any RISC-V support upstream, so pure OE users won't > > notice > > That is just not true. You talk later about misinformation but this is > a blatent lie. > > > any change at all. Assuming you're talking about meta-riscv users: > > as > > noted above, it's simple to automatically remove Kconfig entries you > > disagree with, or add ones you want. > > > > > Now image some company wants to investigate using a RISC-V chip for > > > their embedded project. They use OE/buildroot to build a quick test > > > setup and boot Linux. It now runs significantly slower then some > > > other > > > architecture and they don't choose RISC-V. > > > > The best option for naive users who are seeking maximum performance > > is to > > use a vendor BSP. This goes beyond settings in a kernel config file: > > it > > extends to compiler and linker optimization flags, LTO, accelerator > > firmware and libraries, non-upstreamed performance-related patches, > > vendor support, etc. > > What? How many people actually do this for embedded systems. > > I agree that if you really want to maximise it as much as you can you > will go to this effort, but I don't think most people do. I think we > all know that lots of times embedded Linux is just hacked until it > works and then shipped. In this case defaults are very important. > > > > > > Slowing down all users to help kernel developers debug seems like > > > the > > > wrong direction. Kernel developers should know enough to be able to > > > turn on the required configs, why does this need to be the default? > > > > It's clear you strongly disagree with the decision to do this. It's > > certainly your right to do so. But it's not good to spread > > misinformation > > about how changing the defconfigs "slow[s] down all users," or > > What misinformation? > > Anup shared benchmarking results indicating that this change has a 12% > performance decrease for everyone who uses the defconfig without > removing this change. > > That is everyone who doesn't decide to remove config options from the > default config supplied by the people who wrote the code are now stuck > with a large performance hit. Passing the buck and saying that people > should be changing the defconfig cannot be the right solution here. > > > exaggerating the difficulty for downstream software environments to > > back > > this change out if they wish. > > If you think it is that easy can you please submit the patches? > > I understand it's easy to make decisions that simplfy your flow, but > this has real negative consequences in terms of performance for users > or complexity for maintainers. It would be nice if you take other users > /developers into account before merging changes. I would prefer to have a separate config for debug (that's what we do in Fedora). Why not use config fragment here (e.g. call it debug.config like in powerpc)? See: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/c1bc6f93f95970f917caaac544a374862e84df52 https://elinux.org/images/3/39/Managing-Linux-Kernel-Configurations-with-Config-Fragments-Darren-Hart-VMware.pdf david > > Alistair > > > > > > > - Paul