Re: ia64 removal (was: Re: lockref scalability on x86-64 vs cpu_relax)

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 08:55:41AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 01:31, Luck, Tony [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

Yeah, if it was ia64-only, it's a non-issue these days. It's dead and
in pure maintenance mode from a kernel perspective (if even that).

There's not much "simultaneous" in the SMT on ia64. One thread in a
spin loop will hog the core until the h/w switches to the other thread some
number of cycles (hundreds, thousands? I really can remember). So I
was pretty generous with dropping cpu_relax() into any kind of spin loop.

Is it time yet for:

$ git rm -r arch/ia64

Hi Tony,

Can I take that as an ack on [0]? The EFI subsystem has evolved
substantially over the years, and there is really no way to do any
IA64 testing beyond build testing, so from that perspective, dropping
it entirely would be welcomed.

For what it's worth, Debian and Gentoo both have ia64 ports with active
users (6.1 looks like it currently fails to build in Debian due to a
minor packaging issue, but various versions of 6.0 were built and
published, and one of those is running on the one ia64 Debian builder I
personally have access to).

Jess

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel