Add hwcap2 bits for POWER9
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 6 lines · Adhemerval Zanella
Quoted 5 lines · Peter Bergner
Quoted 3 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Peter, this solves the issue you reported previously [1].
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-12/msg00522.html
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Agreed, thanks. I'll also add the POWER9 support to the GCC side of the patch now that the glibc code is upstream.
I do not see these bits being added in kernel side yet and GLIBC usual only sync these kind of bits *after* they are included in kernel side. So I would advise to either get these pieces (kernel support and hwcap advertise) in kernel before 2.23 release, otherwise revert the patches.
Ack.
It has just been sent to the correspondent Linux mailing list:
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2016-January/137763.html
Signature · 1 line
Tulio Magno
Quoted 11 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Quoted 9 lines · Adhemerval Zanella
Quoted 7 lines · Peter Bergner
Quoted 3 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Peter, this solves the issue you reported previously [1].
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-12/msg00522.html
Agreed, thanks. I'll also add the POWER9 support to the GCC side of the patch now that the glibc code is upstream.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I do not see these bits being added in kernel side yet and GLIBC usual only sync these kind of bits *after* they are included in kernel side. So I would advise to either get these pieces (kernel support and hwcap advertise) in kernel before 2.23 release, otherwise revert the patches.
Ack.
It has just been sent to the correspondent Linux mailing list:
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2016-January/137763.html
Please revert the changes from glibc until you checkin support to linux kernel mainline.
Leaving these bits in increases the risk that someone uses to deploy a glibc that then may have the wrong value.
Cheers,
Carlos.
Quoted 21 lines · Carlos O'Donell
Quoted 11 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Quoted 9 lines · Adhemerval Zanella
Quoted 7 lines · Peter Bergner
Quoted 3 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Peter, this solves the issue you reported previously [1].
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-12/msg00522.html
Agreed, thanks. I'll also add the POWER9 support to the GCC side of the patch now that the glibc code is upstream.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I do not see these bits being added in kernel side yet and GLIBC usual only sync these kind of bits *after* they are included in kernel side. So I would advise to either get these pieces (kernel support and hwcap advertise) in kernel before 2.23 release, otherwise revert the patches.
Ack.
It has just been sent to the correspondent Linux mailing list:
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2016-January/137763.html
Quoted 5 lines
Please revert the changes from glibc until you checkin support to linux kernel mainline.
Leaving these bits in increases the risk that someone uses to deploy a glibc that then may have the wrong value.
Could you clarify this statement, please? I fail to see how they could have the wrong value.
These bits are enabled if you're running a kernel on a processor that supports ISA 3.0 and/or VSX IEEE Float 128-bit. The kernel must also support this processor.
I see 3 possible scenarios:
- Processor that doesn't support these features: as these bits are 0 by default, they have the correct value.
- Both processor and kernel support these features: both bits are set, which is the correct value.
- Processor support these features, but an old kernel doesn't support: these bits would be 0. But, that's a valid scenario.
Am I missing another scenario?
However, I do agree with the concerns raised by Peter and Adhemerval: glibc should be in sync with the kernel by the time of the release in order to guarantee both bits are reserved for the exact same goal and we should have both AT_HWCAP and AT_PLATFORM supporting the new processor. With that said, I was planning to revert both commits d2de9ef7 and b1f19b8e if we don't get the kernel patch accepted into the powerpc tree in time for the release 2.23.
Signature · 1 line
Tulio Magno
Quoted 23 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Quoted 21 lines · Carlos O'Donell
Quoted 19 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Quoted 6 lines · Adhemerval Zanella
Quoted 5 lines · Peter Bergner
Quoted 3 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Peter, this solves the issue you reported previously [1].
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-12/msg00522.html
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Agreed, thanks. I'll also add the POWER9 support to the GCC side of the patch now that the glibc code is upstream.
I do not see these bits being added in kernel side yet and GLIBC usual only sync these kind of bits *after* they are included in kernel side. So I would advise to either get these pieces (kernel support and hwcap advertise) in kernel before 2.23 release, otherwise revert the patches.
Ack.
It has just been sent to the correspondent Linux mailing list:
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2016-January/137763.html
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Please revert the changes from glibc until you checkin support to linux kernel mainline.
Leaving these bits in increases the risk that someone uses to deploy a glibc that then may have the wrong value.
Could you clarify this statement, please? I fail to see how they could have the wrong value.
Until it is checked into the mainline kernel it is not canonical.
That's the rule. There are no other discussions to be had.
The single rule avoids discussions like "it can never be wrong because that's what our ABI says it is."
Quoted 7 lines
However, I do agree with the concerns raised by Peter and Adhemerval: glibc should be in sync with the kernel by the time of the release in order to guarantee both bits are reserved for the exact same goal and we should have both
AT_HWCAPandAT_PLATFORMsupporting the new processor. With that said, I was planning to revert both commitsd2de9ef7andb1f19b8eif we don't get the kernel patch accepted into the powerpc tree in time for the release 2.23.
Exactly. That's perfect. We can backport them to 2.23.1 if you get in later.
Cheers,
Carlos.
Quoted 30 lines · Carlos O'Donell
Quoted 29 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Quoted 26 lines · Carlos O'Donell
Quoted 11 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Quoted 9 lines · Adhemerval Zanella
Quoted 7 lines · Peter Bergner
Quoted 3 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Peter, this solves the issue you reported previously [1].
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-12/msg00522.html
Agreed, thanks. I'll also add the POWER9 support to the GCC side of the patch now that the glibc code is upstream.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I do not see these bits being added in kernel side yet and GLIBC usual only sync these kind of bits *after* they are included in kernel side. So I would advise to either get these pieces (kernel support and hwcap advertise) in kernel before 2.23 release, otherwise revert the patches.
Ack.
It has just been sent to the correspondent Linux mailing list:
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2016-January/137763.htmlPlease revert the changes from glibc until you checkin support to linux kernel mainline.
Leaving these bits in increases the risk that someone uses to deploy a glibc that then may have the wrong value.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Could you clarify this statement, please? I fail to see how they could have the wrong value.
Until it is checked into the mainline kernel it is not canonical.
That's the rule. There are no other discussions to be had.
Well is was posted to to powerpc next:
https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/e708c24cd01ce80b1609d8bacc
We have agreement between the kernel and GLIBC (and the ABI).
The issue is just coordination across communities and individuals that may not being paying attention to other communities dead lines.
Have you ever tried to push a string, up hill. That is open source development in nutshell. ;)
So it is in flight and glibc is soft/slush freeze. I would hate to revert this one day just to add it back to the next. Especially if those days straddle the hard freeze ...
So can we let this ride a day or too?
Quoted 3 lines
The single rule avoids discussions like "it can never be wrong because that's what our ABI says it is."
Quoted 5 lines · Steven Munroe
Quoted 2 lines
That's the rule. There are no other discussions to be had.
Well is was posted to to powerpc next:
https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/e708c24cd01ce80b1609d8bacc
Quoted 7 lines
We have agreement between the kernel and GLIBC (and the ABI).
The issue is just coordination across communities and individuals that may not being paying attention to other communities dead lines.
Have you ever tried to push a string, up hill. That is open source development in nutshell. ;)
I know exactly what this is like.
Quoted 5 lines
So it is in flight and glibc is soft/slush freeze. I would hate to revert this one day just to add it back to the next. Especially if those days straddle the hard freeze ...
So can we let this ride a day or too?
Sure. I'm not an unreasonable person.
My goal as a glibc steward is to remind IBM that our best practice is that we *wait* until it goes into mainline before committing to glibc master.
There really isn't any reason to check this in to glibc master right now. It could wait.
Adhemerval as a release manager is also not an unreasonable person. I have already discussed with Tulio that he should have just waited to commit these changes, but gotten an exception from Adhemerval to checkin the fairly low-risk patches late in the freeze. That's exactly the purpose of a release managers job, to grant you exceptions as we approach release, particularly when schedules don't quite line up.
Cheers,
Carlos.
Quoted 43 lines · Steven Munroe
Quoted 8 lines · Carlos O'Donell
Quoted 7 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Quoted 5 lines · Carlos O'Donell
Quoted 4 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
Quoted 2 lines · Adhemerval Zanella
Quoted 1 line · Peter Bergner
On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 11:25 -0200, Tulio Magno Quites Machado
Quoted 5 lines · Filho
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Peter, this solves the issue you reported previously [1].
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-12/msg00522.html
Agreed, thanks. I'll also add the POWER9 support to the GCC
side
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
of the patch now that the glibc code is upstream.
I do not see these bits being added in kernel side yet and GLIBC
usual
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
only sync these kind of bits *after* they are included in kernel
side.
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
So I would advise to either get these pieces (kernel support and
hwcap
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
advertise) in kernel before 2.23 release, otherwise revert the
patches.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Ack.
It has just been sent to the correspondent Linux mailing list:https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2016-January/137763.html
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Please revert the changes from glibc until you checkin support to
linux
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
kernel mainline.
Leaving these bits in increases the risk that someone uses to
deploy a glibc
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
that then may have the wrong value.
Could you clarify this statement, please? I fail to see how they could have the wrong value.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Until it is checked into the mainline kernel it is not canonical.
That's the rule. There are no other discussions to be had.
Well is was posted to to powerpc next:
https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/e708c24cd01ce80b1609d8bacc
And it is now in Linus' tree:
cheers
Quoted 9 lines · Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
However, I do agree with the concerns raised by Peter and Adhemerval: glibc should be in sync with the kernel by the time of the release in order to guarantee both bits are reserved for the exact same goal and we should have both
AT_HWCAPandAT_PLATFORMsupporting the new processor. With that said, I was planning to revert both commitsd2de9ef7andb1f19b8eif we don't get the kernel patch accepted into the powerpc tree in time for the release 2.23.
Kernel patch is in, commit f689b742f217b2ffe7925f8a6521b208ee995309
Regards,
Signature · 3 lines
Carlos Eduardo Seo Software Engineer - Linux on Power Toolchain [email protected]