Hi,
On 2023-10-08 06:20, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> I'm wondering whether it'd make sense for the Debian kernel to be built with
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y.
On amd64 we already have PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y, so I thought of running some
benchmarks on my Ryzen system to evaluate the
On Tuesday, 17 October 2023 19:07:30 CEST Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > I think it should be explicitly enabled (or disabled) and not be it
> > > > dependent on some other, possibly unrelated, Kconfig option being
> > > > enabled
> >
> > It seems an important difference between your view and mine
On Tue, 2023-10-10 at 23:21 +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> Hi Emanuele,
>
> On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 15:02:07 CEST Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> > On 2023-10-10 01:54, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 12:10:07 CEST Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> > > > CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC is
Hi Emanuele,
On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 15:02:07 CEST Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> On 2023-10-10 01:54, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 12:10:07 CEST Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> > > CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC is set to 'y' by default on amd64
> > > due to HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 12:32:22PM +0200, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> On 2023-10-10 12:14, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> > Quoting Emanuele Rocca (2023-10-10 12:10:07)
> > > Setting CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y on arm64 is likely safe for us too,
> > > but
> > > we may want to run some
On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 14:17:50 CEST Vincent Blut wrote:
> > Neither does amd64. So it appears something else is causing
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC to be enabled on amd64.
>
> From the commit message introducing PREEMPT_DYNAMIC:¹
>
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC is automatically selected by
Hi Diederik,
On 2023-10-10 01:54, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 12:10:07 CEST Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC is set to 'y' by default on amd64 due to
> > HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL being 'y', see:
> >
Hi,
Le 2023-10-10 13:54, Diederik de Haas a écrit :
> On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 12:10:07 CEST Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC is set to 'y' by default on amd64 due to
> > HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL being 'y', see:
> >
On Tuesday, 10 October 2023 12:10:07 CEST Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC is set to 'y' by default on amd64 due to
> HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL being 'y', see:
> https://sources.debian.org/src/linux/6.5.6-1/kernel/Kconfig.preempt/?hl=101#
> L101
>
> arm64 does not have
Hello Johannes,
On 2023-10-10 12:14, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> Quoting Emanuele Rocca (2023-10-10 12:10:07)
> > Setting CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y on arm64 is likely safe for us too,
> > but
> > we may want to run some benchmark first to see if there are any noticeable
> >
Hi,
Quoting Emanuele Rocca (2023-10-10 12:10:07)
> Setting CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y on arm64 is likely safe for us too, but
> we may want to run some benchmark first to see if there are any noticeable
> slowdowns.
I have a couple of arm64 boards here that I can run benchmarks on. What would
Hi,
On 2023-10-08 07:17, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> $ grep PREEMPT_DYNAMIC /boot/config-6.5.0-1-amd64
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y
> CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y
> CONFIG_HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC_CALL=y
[...]
> $ grep PREEMPT_DYNAMIC /boot/config-6.1.0-13-arm64
> # CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC is not set
On 8 October 2023 18:20:20 CEST Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> I'm wondering whether it'd make sense for the Debian kernel to be built with
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=y.
Thanks for raising this, as the current situation appears a bit 'weird'.
=== PC (amd64) ==
$ uname -a
Linux
13 matches
Mail list logo
