From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754675AbbI3QlY (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:41:24 -0400 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:58868 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751594AbbI3QlW (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:41:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:41:03 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Yury Norov , arnd@arndb.de, yury.norov@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, agraf@suse.de, klimov.linux@gmail.com, bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com, apinski@cavium.com, philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, christoph.muellner@theobroma-systems.com Message-ID: <20150930164103.GC15635@sirena.org.uk> References: <1443564860-31208-1-git-send-email-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> <20150930101918.GA9753@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xgyAXRrhYN0wYx8y" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150930101918.GA9753@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> X-Cookie: Give him an evasive answer. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:348:6:8808:7e7a:91ff:fede:4a45 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/23] ILP32 for ARM64 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --xgyAXRrhYN0wYx8y Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:19:19AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:13:57AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > - What for ILP32 on ARM64? > > See https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/13/814 > > and http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.uclibc.buildroot/121100 > > Briefly, > > - for compatibility; > > - for performance; > > - for memory saving. > Does anyone actually need this ABI? And by "need" I don't mean a > tick-box on product fliers but actually someone going to use it on real > systems in the field. Because I'm not keen on maintaining an ABI in the > kernel just as a PR exercise. I have yet to see conclusive benchmarks > that ILP32 is a real win vs LP64 but happy to be proven wrong. Indeed. On that subject there was some discussion at Linaro Connect last week about work (being done outside Linaro, not sure how public it is at this point) to pull together the current state of the art into a Docker container image which people can use for benchmarking and as a reference for how to pull things together. That should help with the analysis, it'll at least make it easier for other people to reproduce any benchmarking results. --xgyAXRrhYN0wYx8y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWDBCeAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQfXgH/1xuvAkO/3T17NUgmmtpjGzZ mdxlTISSCM0eiJo4PlhT1kLHUWI1fkztu3lI/opxXcxOubVgREnbynzLqoTnDl3z RT6yKZPtI7BgUv9xdKYpX/J4TgN2TgQaAY59guEuwy9TS7piF4IqSaacVbsdeM40 LWMSGwmbTTy0varyrBTeQ3MfAMqqJIB+S6yn+ZNRN6M4jk8H3Dmvs8lnSOGs7Jx9 4fExHaa1XiXJbwfC980rzRTRcAjhfMBtjFKhXL0vrEYXUWJAgSPCt6/tyvXdTj7W RheA89mkHhnrpgMMZlImQ6qXYFIHkYrTJN7txOd1EOqc+fL2UIg0wVPeLYUgy/0= =wMtB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xgyAXRrhYN0wYx8y--