Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

64-bit ARM Linux Kernel Against CPU-Specific Optimizations: "Pretty Unmaintainable"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Volta
    replied
    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post

    Come back and tell us that after connecting a QLogic QLGE card. Or 98% of the world's Android phones that use RNDIS for tethering.

    You are a mentally challenged clown.
    I didn't notice this response before. It seems I had my clown filter turned on. Can you translate above to human readable form? I'm not sure what your handicapped brain tried to share and how is this related?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sonadow
    replied
    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    Well that makes more sense, but they can't do that on Linux, because it doesn't have a stable kernel ABI.

    It's not about being monolithic or not. It could very well be monolithic (modules loaded in same address space, as libraries) and have a stable ABI if they wished.

    I actually prefer monolithic because it has more performance, but I'm not a fan of unstable ABI at all.
    True, and the best part is, because the Windows kernel is stable, the vendors don't even need to submit their ISA modifications and optimizations to Microsoft as DLLs to be included into Windows if they don't want to, or if Microsoft doesn't want to. They could, I don't know, maybe package all those DLLs into an installer and tell users who want to use them to download said installer and install it themselves if users think they will really want those, at the risk of tainting and modifying Windows.

    Hell, even macOS's kernel maintains some degree of a stable ABI. It's common to see binary drivers in macOS survive at least one major macOS upgrade. Some drivers even can survive two or more major macOS upgrades.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sonadow
    replied
    Originally posted by Weasel View Post

    Windows is a fucking joke but that's for completely other reasons. That platform (API) is good though.
    I have always been a huge Windows supporter even after using desktop Linux for more than a decade. The way Windows, its filesystem hierarchy and layout, its development environment and its approach to many things just simply align with my belief of how an OS should be designed.

    And you are right, its API is really good. They are fucking complex, but hell just about every API, framework and toolkit Microsoft puts out for Windows is extremely comprehensive. The downside is that it's so complex it's extremely intimidating to even find a starting point to play with.

    Leave a comment:


  • Weasel
    replied
    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
    What? That's a good thing.

    ARM is already such a royal mess where mainline kernels cannot be used with almost every ARM system to date, and you want them to pull in more SoC variant-specific patches?

    Can you imagine what will happen if, for example, board vendors like Asus, MSI etc license Intel/AMD processors, make changes to them, and then submit patches for every single change they make to the processors back to the kernel?

    Actually, just imagine what will happen if all of them submitted requests to Microsoft to include their vendor-specific x64 optimisations and customisations into the Windows kernel. Microsoft will probably just tell them to go pound sand.

    On the other hand, if the vendors compiled these as driver DLLs and requested Microsoft to include them with Windows, Microsoft will probably be more accommodating.
    Well that makes more sense, but they can't do that on Linux, because it doesn't have a stable kernel ABI.

    It's not about being monolithic or not. It could very well be monolithic (modules loaded in same address space, as libraries) and have a stable ABI if they wished.

    I actually prefer monolithic because it has more performance, but I'm not a fan of unstable ABI at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Weasel
    replied
    Originally posted by Volta View Post
    Where's Windows ARM support (at comparable level to Linux)?
    No idea. Who cares? I hate ARM anyway.

    I was talking in general, not Linux kernel specifically; this is just one example. They are always obsessed with simplicity and "maintainability" and basically lazy to have it in, holding progress back even for contributors who contribute the god damn optimizations and code. How does losing 40% performance feel like to you because of some asshat maintainer who "doesn't find it useful" (as if he's the one using it!!! the nerve!!!)

    So spare me the typical classic bullshit "where's your patch then?" talk, anyone who ever said that proves how little experience he has contributing anything to some open source where those clowns will simply ignore or reject it. Or that they're not even programmers in the first place.

    Windows is a fucking joke but that's for completely other reasons. That platform (API) is good though.


    BTW: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-...-UMS-DRM-Infra

    Open source maintainers are great, eh?
    Last edited by Weasel; 23 November 2023, 09:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • wsippel
    replied
    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post

    Come back and tell us that after connecting a QLogic QLGE card. Or 98% of the world's Android phones that use RNDIS for tethering.

    You are a mentally challenged clown.
    It would be QLogic's job to fix the QLGE driver, they submitted it for inclusion. Alas, QLogic no longer exists, and Marvell clearly doesn't care. From what I can tell, the Windows drivers haven't been updated in many, many years, either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Volta
    replied
    Originally posted by Sonadow View Post

    This can easily be done if it's an OS with a very stable kernel like Windows.
    We're not talking about turning Linux into insecure legacy mess with half of its performance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Volta
    replied
    Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

    Anyone arguing in good faith would be smart enough to recognize that what Volta said was shorthand for "Open source developers are still supporting hardware that closed-source vendors dropped support for years ago" and/or "Open source developers are still maintaining competitors to software products that closed-source vendors dropped support for years ago" and address the actual point, rather than making a fool of themselves thinking they've scored a win by attacking a strawman they constructed by intentionally reading an unintended meaning from a bit of lazy grammar.
    Thanks for clarification. It's exactly what I meant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Volta
    replied
    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    Are we talking about old hardware here?

    No.

    Stop making it so easy proving to the world how much of a joke you are. It's no challenge.
    Where's Windows ARM support (at comparable level to Linux)? You were talking about maintainers in case you forgot. Linux supports much more hardware than closed source OSs ever dreamed of. Calling maintainers a joke makes you look like a brainless fool. However, I'd like to have such optimizations mainlined, but I'm not a maintainer, so it's not up to me to deal with this code.​ Let's check how much of a joke you are:

    Linux support for ARM devices:
    • Acorn Archimedes and RiscPC series (original machines were supported in 2.6.22)
    • Allwinner
    • Apple M series processors
    • Broadcom VideoCore
    • DEC StrongARM
    • Samsung Exynos
    • Marvell (formerly Intel) XScale
    • Sharp Zaurus
    • HiSilicon
    • iPAQ
    • Palm, Inc.'s Tungsten Handheld
    • Gamepark Holdings' GP2X
    • Open Pandora
    • MediaTek
    • Nokia 770 Internet Tablet
    • Nokia N800
    • Nokia N810
    • Nokia N900
    • Nomadik
    • NovaThor
    • gumstix
    • Sony Mylo
    • Qualcomm Snapdragon
    • Nvidia Tegra
    • TI OMAP
    • Psion 5, 5MX, Series 7, netBook
    • Rockchip
    • Some Models of Apple iPods (see iPodLinux)
    • OpenMoko Neo 1973, Neo FreeRunner
    • Freescale's (formerly Motorola's) i.MX multimedia processors
    Windows 11 support for AMR devices (get ready for a joke):
    • Qualcomm Snapdragon
    Last edited by Volta; 23 November 2023, 06:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • marios
    replied
    Originally posted by mlau View Post

    Once the first patch of this kind is accepted, there will be hundreds of patches from people with their specific magic performance formula for their super niche kernel. Just look at whats available on github; I would not want to maintain that insane mess of different config options either. And also not deal with the bugreports caused by these.
    I do understand the kernel maintainers position very well.
    The kernel is full of "insane mess of different config options" already. Is it a problem? No! Why? Because infrastructure that makes it maintainable exists. Look at drivers, filesystems, crypto stuff (some architecture specific implementations btw), vulnerability mitigations (heavily micro-architecture specific. Really why did nobody cry about the maintainability of those patches?). All of these things are in the kernel as they should be. The micro-architecture specific optimisations is just another area where something similar has to happen.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X