From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3FC9C433E0 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:36:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.zx2c4.com (lists.zx2c4.com [165.227.139.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B72F64E30 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:36:43 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5B72F64E30 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=essd.nl Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Received: by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id e2ac5a0f; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:36:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmg01-out1.zxcs.nl (pmg01-out1.zxcs.nl [2a06:2ec0:1::ffeb]) by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id af513cdd (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO) for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:36:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmg01.zxcs.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg01.zxcs.nl (ZXCS) with ESMTP id 095201045A2; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:36:38 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=essd.nl; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=JsH0A/T7EtKVT52Bb55A4wiKTYUBBhis1NNgFZDH+ks=; b=cidAWnSMChBXeAN6KRVCUWULGS Ebj3lrFVeHsEnQR8nWmTIKcIiAgKAck2UKVWJUGHnMZh4w/XxQGRIRZreffXiCtGxxjFDzSam1EJW bSiMLhZi7cweLVCTlfzqJ2hLqm9a+o0/t3mpi9QUm4Ngo7wk9BNKOlVfv57IKT9FKXCteu3TkgLch GnoH3xoz8x4QqVdwu2E7vF7XhXasRwO+8LWhLeLYPBZz3bS7OLbAvWJVaeJNCxCu5cJtcGgRkPXWO opy+Yat2UOcJlB3jC+GcfXPZ6Ln835lqyvpJ5KPnEiPvzOdfgHJBYD+Exz4TOu8MyTf9/svkKGqPi oY8dVrgQ==; Subject: Re: "BUG: scheduling while atomic" on 5.4 kernels with PREEMPT_RT To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Cc: WireGuard mailing list References: <90c10d21558d31825a56aac48692b080@essd.nl> <9c5569cf88048c3ceb343340e68d7564@essd.nl> From: Erik Schuitema Message-ID: <0d84e883-2aa5-df3c-95bd-24304223d07f@essd.nl> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:36:36 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: nl X-AuthUser: erik@essd.nl X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30rc1 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" Hi Jason, (Sorry for the delay in my reply..) On 19/12/2020 19:16, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > So far as I can tell, upstream is fine with this. I'd encourage you to > move to the newer LTS, 5.10. The compat stuff has always been pretty > meh. It was an important step in getting WireGuard bootstrapped, of > course, but just look at this horror: > > https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-linux-compat/tree/src/compat/compat.h I don't have doubts about the upstream code, I was merely wondering whether the performance hit from disabling SIMD is still present in newer kernels (it wasn't immediately obvious to me while browsing the 5.10 source). > I'll keep it working as people need, but folks should really really > move to the new LTS, now that it's out. These efforts are highly appreciated! It's not trivial for me to switch to a new kernel (needs extensive product testing), so I'm happy with the 5.4 patch. But I'll be sure to skip right to 5.10 when moving to a new kernel. Best regards, Erik