Mesa Considers Raising CPU Support Baseline

[flashmozzg]

Why would people with 20+ years old CPU would want a new MESA driver? Their CPU is likely matched with similarly outdated GPU which is unlikely to receive any improvements from a new driver.

[unis_torvalds]

Yes, and there are many linux distros that can accomondate these people. You people don't seem to understand: Legacy code does not DISSAPPEAR FROM THE INTERNETS! It is still there, you can use it. If you have a legacy machine, use code that can support it. There is no reason to force people who use hardware made during the last decade to be held back by people who use obsolete hardware.

Just curious: what do you mean by "you people"?

[reba]

x86 (_64) is an architecture that has a long history; over 20 years and more. It spans across many technological advancements and conceptual changes. Of cource something with such a legacy cannot be a "one size fits all".
There are old-ish machines and new-ish machines and they all are thrown into the same bin for x86. For other architectures, that are either older and now not anymore actively used or newer and still on the rise, it's easier but the x86-heritage bring its own burden.
Regardless where you cut, it's both too early and too late.
I think the v1-v4 levels are a good idea and deperately needed to cut x86 into smaller pieces. Older hardware uses v1-v2, newer v2-v4. No harm done. But it really can't come soon enough.
And it would be great if the different distributions and Unixoids could come up with a consistent plan for this. The multitude of different distributions and package managers are sadly already fragmenting the ecosystem enough.

[Teggs]

Would it make sense to match the current (non-SSE2) compiler target to the proposed Mesa-LTS? The idea being that ancient CPUs are probably matched to ancient GPUs, so Mesa-LTS would still serve such hardware, while Mesa-current could reasonably assume SSE2. Or is there too much mismatched hardware in use for that idea to pan out?

[TemplarGR]

A lot of comments in this thread are variations on the sentiment "who in their right mind would still be running 10+ year old hardware in the first place?"

Obviously nobody in a G7 country. But consider that there are computer users in poor countries where hardware typically enjoys MUCH longer useful lifespans (same with clothing and cars, as compared to rich countries).
Furthermore, there are some countries subject to trade embargoes (like Venezuela and Iran) where even if you have the money, you simply can't order the latest GTX or Epyc because they won't ship to you.

Yes, and there are many linux distros that can accomondate these people. You people don't seem to understand: Legacy code does not DISSAPPEAR FROM THE INTERNETS! It is still there, you can use it. If you have a legacy machine, use code that can support it. There is no reason to force people who use hardware made during the last decade to be held back by people who use obsolete hardware.

[unis_torvalds]

A lot of comments in this thread are variations on the sentiment "who in their right mind would still be running 10+ year old hardware in the first place?"

Obviously nobody in a G7 country. But consider that there are computer users in poor countries where hardware typically enjoys MUCH longer useful lifespans (same with clothing and cars, as compared to rich countries).
Furthermore, there are some countries subject to trade embargoes (like Venezuela and Iran) where even if you have the money, you simply can't order the latest GTX or Epyc because they won't ship to you.

[Zan Lynx]

Oddly enough I remember when Linux was for enthusiasts with weird, wonderful and "ancient" hardware.

Yes, and those enthusiasts did not think it was too difficult to move the pin jumpers around on their Ethernet card and edit and recompile the driver.

Now these "enthusiasts" are upset they have to change default settings in a Makefile somewhere?

[FPScholten]

I feel Linux should run on hardware older than 20 years because patents last 20 years. You think technology moves fast? Imagine how much faster it would move if patents didn't exist. If I could support a contemporary hardware vendor that only uses patent expired technology, I would, but my performance baseline for general computing is like a workstation from 2013 with support for h265.

So 16 years of patents left to go with the h265 codecs, but by then h268 will be out and would probably revolutionize everything again and increasing the baseline.


Technology only moves fast enough for expired patents to be almost worthless.

You are absolutely right about this. Any technology that gets patented will see little to no advancement at all until the patent has expired. For example, I live in The Netherlands a country famous for its windmills. However, the development of windmill technology in the Netherlands stalled for half a century when a patent was granted to use windmills to drive mechanic tools. It was only when the patent holder died that a variety of new windmills was constructed that made use of such tools, like sawmills...

[SilverBird775]

While SSE3 is an essential addition to SSE2 (like, Horizontal Add operation is extremely useful and PITA without), SSSE3 is more about math trickery. Raising SSE3 to baseline (Athlon X64 X2, Celeron D, Pentium 4, Via C7 and their other kin) is good enough.

[ezst036]

............. obviously old hardware..............

There goes another useless phrase, meanwhile there are people who are more than happy to define "old hardware" upwards into R600, RadeonSI, Sandy Bridge, Broadwell, even anything pre-Ryzen-class hardware levels.

Those of us who are using blisteringly old ancient Intel 8080(/sarc) hardware see these comments being made, I don't know why those of you using nebulously useless phrases never see it.