Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: Enable zram, xfs and loading compressed FW support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 21/02/2024 20:34, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> On 21/02/2024 16:24, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 04:10:12PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 21/02/2024 15:48, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 03:22:38PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/02/2024 15:13, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>>>>>> These options are needed by some Linux distributions (e.g: Fedora), so
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How ZRAM is needed? Why Fedora cannot boot without it? Debian, which I
>>>>>> use on my arm64 boards, does not have any problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it relevant in any way?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, because it is justification why we are doing it. Each commit is
>>>> supposed to explain "why" and the explanation here is not enough.
>>>
>>> There's a why though: it makes Fedora boot. It might not be enough for
>>
>> I want to know to understand. Maybe it is not really neeed but "nice to
>> have"? People write various vague statements...
>>
> 
> I usually try hard not to be vague. There was a why, it wasn't enough for
> you and that's fair.
> 
> But I think the crux of the why was explained: I don't want to remember
> each time that need to troubleshoot something, what options are missing
> in order to boot Fedora.
> 
>>> you, but that's a different story. So, if it's not enough, please state
>>> exactly what you expect from that patch description so Javier can
>>> provide it.
>>
>> Any explanation what ZRAM is necessary for Fedora to boot.
>>
> 
> I mentioned already in another email, Fedora is enabling the systemd
> zram-generator and not having a /dev/zram0 slows down the boot to the
> point of being unusable. One could disable that service but then is yet

That one sentence would be enough for me.

> another thing to remember when trying to boot an upstream kernel built.
> 
> Could had added all this information to the commit message but I thought
> that it would be too much...
> 
>>>
>>>>> I'm sure Debian can boot without MEMORY_HOTREMOVE, or BRIDGE, or
>>>>> NUMA_BALANCING, or BPF_JIT, or NFS_FS, yet all of them are enabled. Let
>>>>> me know if you want hundreds more examples.
>>>>
>>>> So if there is any bug, you are allowed to add new one? If there is any
>>>> silly option, you are allowed to add new one?
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to propose dropping of any irrelevant options.
>>>
>>> No, of course you aren't. My point is that Fedora is a distro just as
>>> established and legitimate as Debian is. And apparently "it makes Debian
>>> works" is a reasonable argument, since, well, it does.
>>>
>>> If making Fedora boot with that defconfig is not a legitimate goal,
>>
>> It is, but I asked for more information.
>>
>>> please state why, and document it (with the ack of all the maintainers
>>> involved with that defconfig, obviously) so we don't have the same
>>> argument over and over again.
>>>
>>>>>> I kind of repeat comments from similar patch earlier:
>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/fe1e74a2-e933-7cd9-f740-86d871076191@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> About XFS: I don't think it is needed to boot anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like 9P_FS, NFS or UBIFS.
>>>>
>>>> NFS is often used on targets, e.g. my board farm, but also by other people.
>>>>
>>>> UBIFS was added recently because one device was using it - you needed
>>>> it. 9P_FS looks unnecessary.
>>>
>>> So all we need is one person or use case to require it? Sounds like
>>> we've checked that mark here.
>>
>> Use case of given type. I would disagree for SMBFS because we have NFS.
>> UBIFS is hardware requirement. 9P_FS seems like virtio case.
>>
> 
> So that means that for aarch64, some filesystems have more precedence over
> others? It's OK to have ext4 or btrfs but no xfs? Honestly it seems quite
> arbitrary and subjective for me.

Yes, subjective, but to be honest: I would drop Btrfs. I was thinking
about it, but since Arnd agrees on XFS I won't fight that battle.

> 
>>>
>>>>>> This is a defconfig, not a distro config. Please don't make it distro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will gladly support things needed by systemd or equivalent, but not
>>>>>> unusual filesystems needed by distro.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a defconfig. It's whatever people want it to be. Or we need to come
>>>>> up with a clearly defined set of rules of what is acceptable in that
>>>>> defconfig or not, and prune every option that isn't.
>>>>
>>>> So that's the rule I am commenting from time to time. defconfigs are not
>>>> distro configs. These are reference hardware configs and debugging
>>>> configs.
>>>
>>> Supporting a board farm is hardly either.
>>
>> Debugging purpose, but I agree we can drop it.
>>
>>>
>>> And again, I've never heard of such rule for that defconfig in my ~10y
>>> as an ARM platform maintainer. But what do I know, right?
>>>
>>>> I was working in distro so trust me - they do stuff differently
>>>> and they not need XFS in our defconfig for anything.
>>>
> 
> Which distro? Every one uses a different filesystem. SUSE uses btrfs,
> Debian I think ext4, Fedora uses xfs and so on. It's OK if the policy
> is that the defconfig should only be compatible with Debian, but then
> should be written somewhere.

Hm, don't all these distros support choosing the filesystem? I did not
propose Ext4 because Debian is more important or something, but because
we need to choose something and it is kind of default for many people.

> 
>>> Sure, but you're not just arguing for XFS there.
>>
>> I raised need for "why" for ZRAM and un-necessity of XFS. What's wrong
>> with that? I should send separate emails or what?
>>
>>>
>>> What I really don't get is this: this makes the life of people easier.
>>
>> Again: this makes my life harder. I cannot be buying new machines every
>> two years to be able to compile defconfig while testing/working.
>>
> 
> And not having it enabled makes my life (and other fedora users) harder
> because xfs needs to be enabled every time that an upstream kernel needs
> to be tested.

We can here disagree that we might have a bit different needs... I just
provided argument why I object.

> 
>>>
>>> Being able to test an upstream kernel quickly when you have a bug in a
>>> downstream distro is super valuable for any distro developper. And on
>>
>> That's a distro need, not relevant. And even if it was, then your
>> argument would be "let's enable everything distro has!". This is not a
>> distro kernel.
>>
> 
> It's not a distro need in my opinion but an upstream kernel developer
> need. If I have had chosen xfs for personal preference, would that be
> any different?
> 
>>
>>> the long run, if we don't make the switch from a kernel distro to a
>>> mainline kernel relatively easy, we're the ones that will lose out.
>>> Because people just won't bother, or be frustrated and thus super
>>> reluctant to do that work.
>>>
>>> That's the part I don't get. Why do we want to make the life of people
>>> harder. This patch has never been about making the defconfig the main
>>
>> Because it makes my life harder and I don't see benefits. Quoting Arnd:
>> "Unfortunately this will increase build time noticeably, but"
>>
> 
> The benefit is for developers who use Fedora to be able to boot their
> kernels built using defconfig, just like developers using other distros
> can now. We already have ext4 and btrfs, but somehow xfs is not OK.

I would drop btrfs :)

Best regards,
Krzysztof