Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-761-gece9e40c48-fm-20230913.001-gece9e40c
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <020d4d23-ee7e-49aa-9ed5-1bde21fd0a5d@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230919141627.GB39281@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230911150410.GC9098@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <87h6o01w1a.fsf@oracle.com>
 <20230912082606.GB35261@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <87cyyfxd4k.ffs@tglx>
 <CAHk-=whnwC01m_1f-gaM1xbvvwzwTiKitrWniA-ChZv+bM03dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <87led2wdj0.ffs@tglx> <ZQmbhoQIINs8rLHp@casper.infradead.org>
 <0e69f7df80dc5878071deb0d80938138d19de1d1.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de>
 <20230919134218.GA39281@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <a6c84803274116ec827cd4bdd4e72a8d0c304c27.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de>
 <20230919141627.GB39281@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 21 Sep 2023 08:20:38 -0400
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To:     "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "John Paul Adrian Glaubitz" <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc:     "Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Ankur Arora" <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org,
        "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@kernel.org>,
        "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        "Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        "Mel Gorman" <mgorman@suse.de>,
        "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>, jon.grimm@amd.com,
        bharata@amd.com, raghavendra.kt@amd.com,
        "Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        "Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        "Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com>, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com,
        "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org,
        "Richard Weinberger" <richard@nod.at>,
        "Anton Ivanov" <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
        "Johannes Berg" <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        linux-um@lists.infradead.org, "Brian Cain" <bcain@quicinc.com>,
        linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org,
        "Richard Henderson" <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
        "Ivan Kokshaysky" <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
        "Matt Turner" <mattst88@gmail.com>, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023, at 10:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:48:09PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 15:42 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > > The agreement to kill off ia64 wasn't an invitation to kill off other stuff
>> > > that people are still working on! Can we please not do this?
>> > 
>> > If you're working on one of them, then surely it's a simple matter of
>> > working on adding CONFIG_PREEMPT support :-)
>> 
>> 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.
>
> The plan in the parent thread is to remove PREEMPT_NONE and
> PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY and only keep PREEMPT_FULL.
...
>
> PREEMPT isn't something new. Also, I don't think the arch part for
> actually supporting it is particularly hard, mostly it is sticking the
> preempt_schedule_irq() call in return from interrupt code path.
>
> If you convert the arch to generic-entry (a much larger undertaking)
> then you get this for free.

I checked the default configurations for both in-kernel targets and
general-purpose distros and was surprised to learn that very few
actually turn on full preemption by default:

- All distros I looked at (rhel, debian, opensuse) use PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
  by default, though they usually also set PREEMPT_DYNAMIC to let users
  override it at boot time.

- The majority (220) of all defconfig files in the kernel don't select
  any preemption options, and just get PREEMPT_NONE automatically.
  This includes the generic configs for armv7, s390 and mips.
  
- A small number (24) set PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY, but this notably
  includes x86 and ppc64. x86 is the only one of those that sets
  PREEMPT_DYNAMIC

- CONFIG_PREEMPT=y (full preemption) is used on 89 defconfigs,
  including arm64 and a lot of the older arm32, arc and
  mips platforms.

If we want to have a chance of removing both PREEMPT_NONE and
PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY, I think we should start with changing the
defaults first, so defconfigs that don't specify anything else
get PREEMPT=y, and distros that use PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY use it
use it in the absence of a command line argument. If that
doesn't cause too many regressions, the next step might be
to hide the choice under CONFIG_EXPERT until all m68k and
alpha no longer require PREEMPT_NONE.

     Arnd