Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200720204925.3654302-1-ndesaulniers@google.com>
 <20200720204925.3654302-12-ndesaulniers@google.com> <87365izj7i.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <87zh7qy4i4.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <CA+icZUVz0opOb0LihLvPvKM-t0Y=pcUWDyb+u-L_UVnnbPh1rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a3Ms1uvLcbhmbsU+-u11BCrXPaU5Dro=P9LjAG7CYm8ww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a3Ms1uvLcbhmbsU+-u11BCrXPaU5Dro=P9LjAG7CYm8ww@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com
From:   Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jul 2020 15:14:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+icZUXzjcQ7ekTg8LvwcaBZFn_HeDjif+rKaFAKy=0gUrx=Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/11] x86: support i386 with Clang
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Clang-Built-Linux ML <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Dmitry Golovin <dima@golovin.in>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:42 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:07 PM Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 11:17 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
> >
> > I have applied this patch-series v3 but some basics of "i386" usage
> > are not clear to me when I wanted to test it and give some feedback.
> >
> > [1] is the original place in CBL where this was reported and I have
> > commented on this.
> >
> > Beyond some old cruft in i386_defconfig like non-existent
> > "CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_586" I have some fundamental questions:
> >
> > What means "ARCH=i386" and where it is used (for)?
> >
> > I can do:
> >
> > $ ARCH=x86 make V=1 -j3 $MAKE_OPTS i386_defconfig
> > $ make V=1 -j3 $MAKE_OPTS i386_defconfig
> >
> > ...which results in the same .config.
> >
> > Whereas when I do:
> >
> > $ ARCH=i386 make V=1 -j3 $MAKE_OPTS i386_defconfig
> >
> > ...drops CONFIG_64BIT line entirely.
> >
> > But "# CONFIG_64BIT is not set" is explicitly set in
> > arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig but gets dropped.
> >
> > Unsure if above is the same like:
> > $ ARCH=i386 make V=1 -j3 $MAKE_OPTS defconfig
>
> The logic was introduced when arch/i386 and arch/x86_64 got
> merged into arch/x86, to stay compatible with the original behavior
> that would produce a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel depending on which
> machine you are running on.
>
> There are probably not a lot of people building kernels on 32-bit
> machines any more (real 32-bit machines are really slow compared
> to modern ones, and 64-bit machines running 32-bit distros usually
> want a 64-bit kernel), so it could in theory be changed.
>
> It will certainly break someone's workflow though, so nobody has
> proposed actually changing it so far.
>
> > When generating via "make ... i386_defconfig" modern gcc-9 and and a
> > snapshot version of clang-11 build both with:
> >
> > $ ARCH=x86 make V=1 -j3 $MAKE_OPTS
> > ... -march=i686 -mtune=generic ...
> >
> > Checking generated .config reveals:
> >
> > CONFIG_M686=y
> >
> > So, I guess modern compilers do at least support "i686" as lowest CPU?
>
> i686 compiler support goes back to the 1990s, and the kernel now
> requires at least gcc-4.9 from 2014, so yes.
>
> > Nick D. says:
> > > I usually test with make ... i386_defconfig.
> >
> > Can you enlighten a bit?
> >
> > Of course, I can send a patch to remove the "CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_586=y"
> > line from i386_defconfig.
>
> The "i386" in i386_defconfig is just a synonym for x86-32, it does not
> imply a particular CPU generation. The original i386 is no longer supported,
> i486sx (barely) is and in practice most 32-bit Linux code gets compiled
> for some variant of i586 or i686 variant but run on 64-bit hardware.
>

Thanks a lot Arnd for all the detailed informations.

A change of i386_defconfig to x86_defconfig will cause a big cry from
all kernel-bot maintainers :-).

- Sedat -

P.S.: CONFIG_64BIT
What I dropped by accident in my previous mail:
What happens when there is no CONFIG_64BIT line?
There exist explicit checks for (and "inverse") of CONFIG_64BIT like
"ifdef" and "ifndef" or any "defined(...)" and its opposite?
I remember I have seen checks for it in x86 tree.

- EOT -