5:44 a.m.
Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during the QEMU
contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors stopped
shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware from
the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit, keeping the 32-bit support alive
is an inadequate burden for the QEMU project. Let's mark the 32-bit
support as deprecated so we can drop it after a while - this will help
us to cut down our limited CI minutes in the gitlab CI, for example.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com>
---
docs/about/deprecated.rst | 13 ++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/docs/about/deprecated.rst b/docs/about/deprecated.rst
index 9f1bbc495d..ce6463e72b 100644
--- a/docs/about/deprecated.rst
+++ b/docs/about/deprecated.rst
@@ -181,9 +181,20 @@ As Debian 10 ("Buster") moved into LTS the big endian 32
bit version of
MIPS moved out of support making it hard to maintain our
cross-compilation CI tests of the architecture. As we no longer have
CI coverage support may bitrot away before the deprecation process
-completes. The little endian variants of MIPS (both 32 and 64 bit) are
+completes. The little endian variants of MIPS are
still a supported host architecture.
+32-bit host operating systems (since 8.0)
+'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
+
+Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during the QEMU
+contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors stopped
+shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware from
+the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit, keeping the 32-bit support alive
+is an inadequate burden for the QEMU project. Thus QEMU will soon drop the
+support for 32-bit host systems.
+
+
QEMU API (QAPI) events
----------------------
--
2.31.1
5:47 a.m.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during the QEMU
contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors stopped
shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware from
the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point where
I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
thanks
-- PMM
6:01 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during the QEMU
> contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors stopped
> shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware from
> the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point where
I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the support
burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched integer
sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross compile.
I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops in the past,
or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase ?
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
6:22 a.m.
On 30/01/2023 13.01, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during the QEMU
>> contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors stopped
>> shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware from
>> the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
>
> True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
> Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
> I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point where
> I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
Even mobile phones have 64-bit processors nowadays, Rasberry PIs are 64-bit
nowadays ... which arm hosts scenarios are still limited to 32-bit ?
Also, as far as I know, 32-bit KVM arm support has been removed from the
Linux kernel a while ago already, so it's just about TCG now ... is there
really still that much interest in running emulation on a non-beefy 32-bit host?
Anyway, we could add the deprecation notice now to find out if there are
still 32-bit users out there who will then start complaining about this.
Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the support
burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched integer
sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross compile.
The burden are the CI minutes of the shared CI runners. We've got quite a
bunch of 32-bit jobs in the CI:
- cross-armel-system
- cross-armel-user
- cross-armhf-system
- cross-armhf-user
- cross-i386-system
- cross-i386-user
- cross-i386-tci
- cross-mipsel-system
- cross-mipsel-user
- cross-win32-system
If we could finally drop supporting 32-bit hosts, that would help with our
CI minutes problem quite a lot, I think.
Thomas
6:43 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 01:22:22PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 30/01/2023 13.01, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during the
QEMU
> > > contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors
stopped
> > > shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware from
> > > the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
> >
> > True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
> > Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
> > I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point where
> > I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
Even mobile phones have 64-bit processors nowadays, Rasberry PIs are 64-bit
nowadays ... which arm hosts scenarios are still limited to 32-bit ?
Also, as far as I know, 32-bit KVM arm support has been removed from the
Linux kernel a while ago already, so it's just about TCG now ... is there
really still that much interest in running emulation on a non-beefy 32-bit
host?
Anyway, we could add the deprecation notice now to find out if there are
still 32-bit users out there who will then start complaining about this.
> Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the support
> burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched integer
> sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross compile.
The burden are the CI minutes of the shared CI runners. We've got quite a
bunch of 32-bit jobs in the CI:
- cross-armel-system
- cross-armel-user
- cross-armhf-system
- cross-armhf-user
- cross-i386-system
- cross-i386-user
- cross-i386-tci
- cross-mipsel-system
- cross-mipsel-user
- cross-win32-system
If we could finally drop supporting 32-bit hosts, that would help with our
CI minutes problem quite a lot, I think.
CI is a non-technical constraint, that's more about support level.
If we want to save CI minutes, we can declare that some or all of the
32-bit hosts scenarios are now tier 2, rather than tier 1. So the 32-bit
host support still exists, but we're not doing gating CI on every
combination. eg could declare 32-bit for linux-user is tier 1 and fully
tested but 32-bit machine emul is tier 2 and adhoc tested. Or make it
more nuanced per arch target
We only need to deprecate and delete if we have some wins at the code
level that we can't do with while it exists.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
7:07 a.m.
On 30/01/2023 13.43, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 01:22:22PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 30/01/2023 13.01, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during the
QEMU
>>>> contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors
stopped
>>>> shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware
from
>>>> the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
...
>> Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the
support
>> burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched integer
>> sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross compile.
>
> The burden are the CI minutes of the shared CI runners. We've got quite a
> bunch of 32-bit jobs in the CI:
>
> - cross-armel-system
> - cross-armel-user
> - cross-armhf-system
> - cross-armhf-user
> - cross-i386-system
> - cross-i386-user
> - cross-i386-tci
> - cross-mipsel-system
> - cross-mipsel-user
> - cross-win32-system
>
> If we could finally drop supporting 32-bit hosts, that would help with our
> CI minutes problem quite a lot, I think.
CI is a non-technical constraint, that's more about support level.
If we want to save CI minutes, we can declare that some or all of the
32-bit hosts scenarios are now tier 2, rather than tier 1. So the 32-bit
host support still exists, but we're not doing gating CI on every
combination. eg could declare 32-bit for linux-user is tier 1 and fully
tested but 32-bit machine emul is tier 2 and adhoc tested. Or make it
more nuanced per arch target
Well, while the burden currently mostly comes from the CI minutes (since it
catches problems immediately, they don't get committed), you would need
people's time instead who have to look after the problems once they've been
committed to the repository (which will surely happen if we don't check
32-bit host support in the CI anymore).
Who's volunteering in spending his time with analyzing (e.g. bisecting) and
fixing those problems? At least I don't.
We only need to deprecate and delete if we have some wins at the
code
level that we can't do with while it exists.
We also would have quite some wins at the code level, I think: At least the
whole "tcg/arm/" folder would go away, and we could simplify all spots that
are using HOST_LONG_BITS in the code base.
Thomas
1:19 p.m.
On 1/30/23 02:01, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops in the
past,
or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase ?
TCG_OVERSIZED_GUEST, where 32-bit host running 64-bit guest cannot run the guest except in
round-robin mode. It's not *that* much of a support burden, since we're not going
to
eliminate round-robin mode.
But I do question whether we need to support 64-bit guests on 32-bit hosts at all.
Retaining 32-bit on 32-bit allows arm32 to emulate i686, which I suspect, but have no
proof, is the limit of what users actually want.
r~
5:14 p.m.
On 30/1/23 20:19, Richard Henderson wrote:
But I do question whether we need to support 64-bit guests on 32-bit
hosts at all.
Retaining 32-bit on 32-bit allows arm32 to emulate i686, which I
suspect, but have no proof, is the limit of what users actually want.
I presume you implicitly restrict that to user emulation, right?
WRT i686, if your example is "i686 useremu on non-x86 embedde router"
then any 32-bit host is potentially interested, not only arm32.
I remember being able to run armhf binaries on armel hosts (and vice
versa) was useful 7 years ago. Today I have no clue, we could poll the
community and some distributions.
5:33 p.m.
On 1/30/23 13:14, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 30/1/23 20:19, Richard Henderson wrote:
> But I do question whether we need to support 64-bit guests on 32-bit hosts at all.
> Retaining 32-bit on 32-bit allows arm32 to emulate i686, which I suspect, but have no
> proof, is the limit of what users actually want.
I presume you implicitly restrict that to user emulation, right?
No, there's no specific reason to eliminate e.g. qemu-system-i386. or any other 32-bit
guest. Though quite often such hardware doesn't really have enough ram to do a good
job,
that's not a technical argument against.
WRT i686, if your example is "i686 useremu on non-x86 embedde
router"
then any 32-bit host is potentially interested, not only arm32.
arm32 was merely an example -- the other 32-bit hosts are i686, mips, ppc. But we
don't
have many of them.
I remember being able to run armhf binaries on armel hosts (and vice
versa) was useful 7 years ago.
Fair enough.
Today I have no clue, we could poll the community and some
distributions.
Sure.
r~
6:19 p.m.
On 31/1/23 00:33, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 1/30/23 13:14, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 30/1/23 20:19, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
>> But I do question whether we need to support 64-bit guests on 32-bit
>> hosts at all.
>> Retaining 32-bit on 32-bit allows arm32 to emulate i686, which I
>> suspect, but have no proof, is the limit of what users actually want.
>
> I presume you implicitly restrict that to user emulation, right?
No, there's no specific reason to eliminate e.g. qemu-system-i386. or
any other 32-bit guest. Though quite often such hardware doesn't really
have enough ram to do a good job, that's not a technical argument against.
I am not concerned by the RAM limit but by the community maintenance
cost. As of 2023, QEMU v7.2.0 is usable on 32-bit. Fixes will be
backported in the v7.2.x stable releases. Maybe this is enough for
32-bit host users; and planning the unavailability of features released
in v8.2 or v9.0 for 32-bit hosts doesn't seem unreasonable.
Stefan Weil once posted stats of Win32 vs Win64 binary downloads from
last year IIRC, and Win32 is still consumed (but maybe the difference
comes from mirrors or users always downloading both versions).
> WRT i686, if your example is "i686 useremu on non-x86
embedded router"
> then any 32-bit host is potentially interested, not only arm32.
arm32 was merely an example -- the other 32-bit hosts are i686, mips,
ppc. But we don't have many of them.
> I remember being able to run armhf binaries on armel hosts (and vice
> versa) was useful 7 years ago.
Fair enough.
> Today I have no clue, we could poll the community and some distributions.
Sure.
r~
2:45 p.m.
Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during the QEMU
> > contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors stopped
> > shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware from
> > the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
>
> True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
> Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
> I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point where
> I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the support
burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched integer
sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross compile.
I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops in the past,
or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase ?
Atomic operations on > TARGET_BIT_SIZE and cputlb when
TCG_OVERSIZED_GUEST is set. Also the core TCG code and a bunch of the
backends have TARGET_LONG_BITS > TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS ifdefs peppered
throughout.
With regards,
Daniel
--
Alex Bennée
Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
4:12 p.m.
On 30/01/2023 20:45, Alex Bennée wrote:
Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during the QEMU
>>> contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors stopped
>>> shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware from
>>> the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
>>
>> True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
>> Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
>> I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point where
>> I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
>
> Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the support
> burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched integer
> sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross compile.
>
> I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops in the past,
> or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase ?
Atomic operations on > TARGET_BIT_SIZE and cputlb when
TCG_OVERSIZED_GUEST is set. Also the core TCG code and a bunch of the
backends have TARGET_LONG_BITS > TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS ifdefs peppered
throughout.
I am one of an admittedly small group of people still interested in using KVM-PR on
ppc32 to boot MacOS, although there is some interest on using 64-bit KVM-PR to run
super-fast MacOS on modern Talos hardware.
From my perspective losing the ability to run 64-bit guests on 32-bit hardware with
TCG wouldn't be an issue, as long as it were still possible to use qemu-system-ppc on
32-bit hardware using both TCG and KVM to help debug the remaining issues.
ATB,
Mark.
9 a.m.
On 05/02/2023 23.12, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
On 30/01/2023 20:45, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during the
>>>> QEMU
>>>> contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors
stopped
>>>> shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware
from
>>>> the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
>>>
>>> True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
>>> Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
>>> I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point where
>>> I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
>>
>> Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the support
>> burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched integer
>> sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross compile.
>>
>> I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops in the past,
>> or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase ?
>
> Atomic operations on > TARGET_BIT_SIZE and cputlb when
> TCG_OVERSIZED_GUEST is set. Also the core TCG code and a bunch of the
> backends have TARGET_LONG_BITS > TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS ifdefs peppered
> throughout.
I am one of an admittedly small group of people still interested in using
KVM-PR on ppc32 to boot MacOS, although there is some interest on using
64-bit KVM-PR to run super-fast MacOS on modern Talos hardware.
From my perspective losing the ability to run 64-bit guests on 32-bit
hardware with TCG wouldn't be an issue, as long as it were still possible to
use qemu-system-ppc on 32-bit hardware using both TCG and KVM to help debug
the remaining issues.
Hi Mark!
Just out of curiosity (since we briefly talked about 32-bit KVM on ppc in
today's QEMU/KVM call - in the context of whether qemu-system-ppc64 is a
proper superset of qemu-system-ppc when it comes to building a unified
qemu-system binary): What host machine are you using for running KVM-PR? And
which QEMU machine are you using for running macOS? The mac99 or the g3beige
machine?
Unrelated to KVM: Do you happen to know whether there are any problems when
running 32-bit guests with TCG with the mac99 or g3beige machine while using
qemu-system-ppc64 ?
Thanks,
Thomas
9:20 a.m.
Unrelated to KVM: Do you happen to know whether there are any
problems when running 32-bit guests with TCG with the mac99 or g3beige machine while using
qemu-system-ppc64 ?
We removed rfi support for 64bit machine in QEMU 2.7. Commit a2e71b28e8
("ppc: Fix rfi/rfid/hrfi/... emulation"). So a mac99 machine using a 970
CPU needs a 64 bit kernel. The rfi insn was deleted from the ISA ...
C.
10:58 a.m.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> Unrelated to KVM: Do you happen to know whether there are any
problems when
> running 32-bit guests with TCG with the mac99 or g3beige machine while
> using qemu-system-ppc64 ?
We removed rfi support for 64bit machine in QEMU 2.7. Commit a2e71b28e8
("ppc: Fix rfi/rfid/hrfi/... emulation"). So a mac99 machine using a 970
CPU needs a 64 bit kernel. The rfi insn was deleted from the ISA ...
I don't know about that issue but maybe this does not really answer the
question. AFAIK you could still run 32 bit guests with qemu-system-ppc64
and they seem to work. One could still get the qemu-system-ppc -M mac99
machine as qemu-system-ppc64 -M mac99 -cpu G4 but this is very confusing
and nobody could guess it. Other machines should work the same in
qemu-system-ppc64, the only concern is that some defines such as
TARGET_ULONG are different between qemu-system-ppc and qemu-system-ppc64
and it's not known if this could cause any problems. It's more frequently
happens that people try qemu-system-ppc64 -M mac99 when they want a G4 Mac
and get confused that it emulates a G5 Mac instead which does not even
work for anything than a Linux guest.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
9:32 a.m.
[ adding Zoltan ]
On 4/4/23 16:00, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 05/02/2023 23.12, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> On 30/01/2023 20:45, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
>> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during
the QEMU
>>>>> contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors
stopped
>>>>> shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware
from
>>>>> the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
>>>>
>>>> True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
>>>> Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
>>>> I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point where
>>>> I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
>>>
>>> Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the support
>>> burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched integer
>>> sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross compile.
>>>
>>> I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops in the past,
>>> or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase ?
>>
>> Atomic operations on > TARGET_BIT_SIZE and cputlb when
>> TCG_OVERSIZED_GUEST is set. Also the core TCG code and a bunch of the
>> backends have TARGET_LONG_BITS > TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS ifdefs peppered
>> throughout.
>
> I am one of an admittedly small group of people still interested in using KVM-PR on
ppc32 to boot MacOS, although there is some interest on using 64-bit KVM-PR to run
super-fast MacOS on modern Talos hardware.
>
> From my perspective losing the ability to run 64-bit guests on 32-bit hardware with
TCG wouldn't be an issue, as long as it were still possible to use qemu-system-ppc on
32-bit hardware using both TCG and KVM to help debug the remaining issues.
Hi Mark!
Just out of curiosity (since we briefly talked about 32-bit KVM on ppc in today's
QEMU/KVM call - in the context of whether qemu-system-ppc64 is a proper superset of
qemu-system-ppc when it comes to building a unified qemu-system binary): What host machine
are you using for running KVM-PR? And which QEMU machine are you using for running macOS?
The mac99 or the g3beige machine?
Zoltan, what about the pegasos2 and sam460ex machines ? can they be run under KVM ?
Thanks,
C.
10:42 a.m.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
[ adding Zoltan ]
On 4/4/23 16:00, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 05/02/2023 23.12, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>> On 30/01/2023 20:45, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time
during the
>>>>>> QEMU
>>>>>> contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS
vendors
>>>>>> stopped
>>>>>> shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most
hardware
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
>>>>>
>>>>> True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
>>>>> Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
>>>>> I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point
where
>>>>> I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
>>>>
>>>> Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the support
>>>> burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched integer
>>>> sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross
compile.
>>>>
>>>> I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops in the past,
>>>> or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase ?
>>>
>>> Atomic operations on > TARGET_BIT_SIZE and cputlb when
>>> TCG_OVERSIZED_GUEST is set. Also the core TCG code and a bunch of the
>>> backends have TARGET_LONG_BITS > TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS ifdefs peppered
>>> throughout.
>>
>> I am one of an admittedly small group of people still interested in using
>> KVM-PR on ppc32 to boot MacOS, although there is some interest on using
>> 64-bit KVM-PR to run super-fast MacOS on modern Talos hardware.
>>
>> From my perspective losing the ability to run 64-bit guests on 32-bit
>> hardware with TCG wouldn't be an issue, as long as it were still possible
>> to use qemu-system-ppc on 32-bit hardware using both TCG and KVM to help
>> debug the remaining issues.
>
> Hi Mark!
>
> Just out of curiosity (since we briefly talked about 32-bit KVM on ppc in
> today's QEMU/KVM call - in the context of whether qemu-system-ppc64 is a
> proper superset of qemu-system-ppc when it comes to building a unified
> qemu-system binary): What host machine are you using for running KVM-PR?
> And which QEMU machine are you using for running macOS? The mac99 or the
> g3beige machine?
Zoltan, what about the pegasos2 and sam460ex machines ? can they be run under
KVM ?
I don't know as I don't have PPC hardware to test on but theoretically
they should work. Although BookE KVM was dropped from Linux I think so
sam460ex could only work with an old kernel on a BookE host which is now
rare but pegasos2 uses G4 CPU which is more likely to work on a host with
the same CPU but I don't know anybody tested it yet. I know some people
are interested to use it especially on G4 and G5 and some tested the
latter but it does not work due to some differences that should be handled
by KVM-PR but apparently they aren't (e.g. dcbz cache line size which I've
seen debugged and identified by at least two sources that I sent
references to this list before but to my knowledge no fix got upstream in
Linux for this).
AFAIK Mark has a G4 Mac mini on which KVM-PR works and it may also work on
G5 when using 32 bit Kernel but running G4 guest on G5 with 64 bit kernel
does not work. G5 host with 64 bit kernel may work with 64 bit guests but
all Amiga like OSes I'm interested in are 32 bit so they either need 32
bit host kernel, preferably with same CPU as the guest (so G4 for pegasos2
or PPC440 for sam460ex) or fixing the patching and emulation of
instructions in KVM-PR that behave differently between G4 and G5 which
should be possible but nobody seems to have done it or bothered to
upstream it and what's there may be incomplete or buggy.
The only reports I've seen that said it works were either running 32bit
guest on 32bit BookS host or 64bit guest on 64bit BookS host. (A special
case is running 64bit aware 32bit guest such as newer MacOS or MorphOS
versions on 64bit hosts which can run on real G5 so these may run as long
as they correctly identify the CPU they are running on but the G5 Mac
emulation in QEMU currently can't boot these because the machine is not
emulated precisely enough for them.)
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
3:01 a.m.
On 04/04/2023 17.42, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> [ adding Zoltan ]
>
> On 4/4/23 16:00, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 05/02/2023 23.12, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>>> On 30/01/2023 20:45, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>>
>>>> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth
<thuth(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time
during
>>>>>>> the QEMU
>>>>>>> contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS
vendors
>>>>>>> stopped
>>>>>>> shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most
hardware
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
>>>>>> Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
>>>>>> I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point
where
>>>>>> I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the support
>>>>> burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched
integer
>>>>> sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross
compile.
>>>>>
>>>>> I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops in the
past,
>>>>> or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase ?
>>>>
>>>> Atomic operations on > TARGET_BIT_SIZE and cputlb when
>>>> TCG_OVERSIZED_GUEST is set. Also the core TCG code and a bunch of the
>>>> backends have TARGET_LONG_BITS > TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS ifdefs peppered
>>>> throughout.
>>>
>>> I am one of an admittedly small group of people still interested in
>>> using KVM-PR on ppc32 to boot MacOS, although there is some interest on
>>> using 64-bit KVM-PR to run super-fast MacOS on modern Talos hardware.
>>>
>>> From my perspective losing the ability to run 64-bit guests on 32-bit
>>> hardware with TCG wouldn't be an issue, as long as it were still
>>> possible to use qemu-system-ppc on 32-bit hardware using both TCG and
>>> KVM to help debug the remaining issues.
>>
>> Hi Mark!
>>
>> Just out of curiosity (since we briefly talked about 32-bit KVM on ppc in
>> today's QEMU/KVM call - in the context of whether qemu-system-ppc64 is a
>> proper superset of qemu-system-ppc when it comes to building a unified
>> qemu-system binary): What host machine are you using for running KVM-PR?
>> And which QEMU machine are you using for running macOS? The mac99 or the
>> g3beige machine?
>
> Zoltan, what about the pegasos2 and sam460ex machines ? can they be run
> under KVM ?
I don't know as I don't have PPC hardware to test on but theoretically they
should work. Although BookE KVM was dropped from Linux I think so sam460ex
could only work with an old kernel on a BookE host which is now rare
[...]
Thanks for your explanations, that indeed helps to understand the situation!
But are you sure about the BookE KVM removal in the Linux kernel? ... when I
look at the arch/powerpc/kvm/ folder there, I can still see some files there
with "booke" in the name?
Thomas
6:54 a.m.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 04/04/2023 17.42, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>> [ adding Zoltan ]
>>
>> On 4/4/23 16:00, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 05/02/2023 23.12, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>>>> On 30/01/2023 20:45, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth
<thuth(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious
time during
>>>>>>>> the QEMU
>>>>>>>> contiguous integration tests, and considering that many
OS vendors
>>>>>>>> stopped
>>>>>>>> shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and
most hardware
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
>>>>>>> Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
>>>>>>> I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a
point where
>>>>>>> I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the
support
>>>>>> burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched
integer
>>>>>> sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross
compile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops in
the
>>>>>> past,
>>>>>> or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Atomic operations on > TARGET_BIT_SIZE and cputlb when
>>>>> TCG_OVERSIZED_GUEST is set. Also the core TCG code and a bunch of
the
>>>>> backends have TARGET_LONG_BITS > TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS ifdefs
peppered
>>>>> throughout.
>>>>
>>>> I am one of an admittedly small group of people still interested in
>>>> using KVM-PR on ppc32 to boot MacOS, although there is some interest on
>>>> using 64-bit KVM-PR to run super-fast MacOS on modern Talos hardware.
>>>>
>>>> From my perspective losing the ability to run 64-bit guests on 32-bit
>>>> hardware with TCG wouldn't be an issue, as long as it were still
>>>> possible to use qemu-system-ppc on 32-bit hardware using both TCG and
>>>> KVM to help debug the remaining issues.
>>>
>>> Hi Mark!
>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity (since we briefly talked about 32-bit KVM on ppc in
>>> today's QEMU/KVM call - in the context of whether qemu-system-ppc64 is a
>>> proper superset of qemu-system-ppc when it comes to building a unified
>>> qemu-system binary): What host machine are you using for running KVM-PR?
>>> And which QEMU machine are you using for running macOS? The mac99 or the
>>> g3beige machine?
>>
>> Zoltan, what about the pegasos2 and sam460ex machines ? can they be run
>> under KVM ?
>
> I don't know as I don't have PPC hardware to test on but theoretically they
> should work. Although BookE KVM was dropped from Linux I think so sam460ex
> could only work with an old kernel on a BookE host which is now rare
[...]
Thanks for your explanations, that indeed helps to understand the situation!
But are you sure about the BookE KVM removal in the Linux kernel? ... when I
look at the arch/powerpc/kvm/ folder there, I can still see some files there
with "booke" in the name?
No, I'm not sure but I think KVM on PPC440 (which is used by sam460ex) is
likely not working properly. What's there may work on newer cores such as
e500 and later but not sure if that can run PPC440 code. I never heard
anyone successfully getting sam460ex work with KVM but that may also be
because real PPC440 hosts are rare.
But if the question is if we still need 32 bit PPC host I think we do for
now as that's the only way to run 32bit guests with G3 and G4 until the
issues which prevent them to run on 64bit host kernel are fixed.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
7:51 a.m.
On 05/04/2023 13.54, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 04/04/2023 17.42, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>>> [ adding Zoltan ]
>>>
>>> On 4/4/23 16:00, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> On 05/02/2023 23.12, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>>>>> On 30/01/2023 20:45, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell
wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth
<thuth(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of
precious time during
>>>>>>>>> the QEMU
>>>>>>>>> contiguous integration tests, and considering that
many OS vendors
>>>>>>>>> stopped
>>>>>>>>> shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions
and most
>>>>>>>>> hardware from
>>>>>>>>> the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True for x86, not necessarily true for other
architectures.
>>>>>>>> Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all
32-bit?
>>>>>>>> I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at
a point where
>>>>>>>> I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host
support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the
support
>>>>>>> burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from
mismatched integer
>>>>>>> sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a
cross compile.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops
in the
>>>>>>> past,
>>>>>>> or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase
?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Atomic operations on > TARGET_BIT_SIZE and cputlb when
>>>>>> TCG_OVERSIZED_GUEST is set. Also the core TCG code and a bunch of
the
>>>>>> backends have TARGET_LONG_BITS > TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS ifdefs
peppered
>>>>>> throughout.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am one of an admittedly small group of people still interested in
>>>>> using KVM-PR on ppc32 to boot MacOS, although there is some interest
>>>>> on using 64-bit KVM-PR to run super-fast MacOS on modern Talos
hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>> From my perspective losing the ability to run 64-bit guests on
32-bit
>>>>> hardware with TCG wouldn't be an issue, as long as it were still
>>>>> possible to use qemu-system-ppc on 32-bit hardware using both TCG and
>>>>> KVM to help debug the remaining issues.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mark!
>>>>
>>>> Just out of curiosity (since we briefly talked about 32-bit KVM on ppc
>>>> in today's QEMU/KVM call - in the context of whether
qemu-system-ppc64
>>>> is a proper superset of qemu-system-ppc when it comes to building a
>>>> unified qemu-system binary): What host machine are you using for
>>>> running KVM-PR? And which QEMU machine are you using for running macOS?
>>>> The mac99 or the g3beige machine?
>>>
>>> Zoltan, what about the pegasos2 and sam460ex machines ? can they be run
>>> under KVM ?
>>
>> I don't know as I don't have PPC hardware to test on but theoretically
>> they should work. Although BookE KVM was dropped from Linux I think so
>> sam460ex could only work with an old kernel on a BookE host which is now
>> rare
> [...]
>
> Thanks for your explanations, that indeed helps to understand the situation!
>
> But are you sure about the BookE KVM removal in the Linux kernel? ... when
> I look at the arch/powerpc/kvm/ folder there, I can still see some files
> there with "booke" in the name?
No, I'm not sure but I think KVM on PPC440 (which is used by sam460ex) is
likely not working properly. What's there may work on newer cores such as
e500 and later but not sure if that can run PPC440 code. I never heard
anyone successfully getting sam460ex work with KVM but that may also be
because real PPC440 hosts are rare.
Ok, if nobody is really using KVM on PPC440 anymore, we should mark that as
deprecated in QEMU, I think.
But if the question is if we still need 32 bit PPC host I think we do
for
now as that's the only way to run 32bit guests with G3 and G4 until the
issues which prevent them to run on 64bit host kernel are fixed.
Yes, understood. As long as 32-bit KVM is in use on ppc, we've got to keep
the code around.
Thomas
10:50 a.m.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 05/02/2023 23.12, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> On 30/01/2023 20:45, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
>> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during
the
>>>>> QEMU
>>>>> contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors
>>>>> stopped
>>>>> shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware
>>>>> from
>>>>> the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
>>>>
>>>> True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
>>>> Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
>>>> I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point where
>>>> I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
>>>
>>> Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the support
>>> burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched integer
>>> sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross compile.
>>>
>>> I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops in the past,
>>> or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase ?
>>
>> Atomic operations on > TARGET_BIT_SIZE and cputlb when
>> TCG_OVERSIZED_GUEST is set. Also the core TCG code and a bunch of the
>> backends have TARGET_LONG_BITS > TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS ifdefs peppered
>> throughout.
>
> I am one of an admittedly small group of people still interested in using
> KVM-PR on ppc32 to boot MacOS, although there is some interest on using
> 64-bit KVM-PR to run super-fast MacOS on modern Talos hardware.
>
> From my perspective losing the ability to run 64-bit guests on 32-bit
> hardware with TCG wouldn't be an issue, as long as it were still possible
> to use qemu-system-ppc on 32-bit hardware using both TCG and KVM to help
> debug the remaining issues.
Hi Mark!
Just out of curiosity (since we briefly talked about 32-bit KVM on ppc in
today's QEMU/KVM call - in the context of whether qemu-system-ppc64 is a
proper superset of qemu-system-ppc when it comes to building a unified
qemu-system binary): What host machine are you using for running KVM-PR? And
Another issue I know is that mac99 behaves differently in qemu-system-ppc
and qemu-system-ppc64. This is not only confusing users but makes it more
difficult to get rid of qemu-system-ppc. I've tried to solve that and
sumbitted a patch to start deprecating these but I could not get that
merged. That thread ended here:
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-ppc/2023-01/msg00406.html
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
4:01 p.m.
On 04/04/2023 15:00, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 05/02/2023 23.12, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> On 30/01/2023 20:45, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
>> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during
the QEMU
>>>>> contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors
stopped
>>>>> shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware
from
>>>>> the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
>>>>
>>>> True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
>>>> Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
>>>> I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point where
>>>> I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
>>>
>>> Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the support
>>> burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched integer
>>> sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross compile.
>>>
>>> I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops in the past,
>>> or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase ?
>>
>> Atomic operations on > TARGET_BIT_SIZE and cputlb when
>> TCG_OVERSIZED_GUEST is set. Also the core TCG code and a bunch of the
>> backends have TARGET_LONG_BITS > TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS ifdefs peppered
>> throughout.
>
> I am one of an admittedly small group of people still interested in using KVM-PR on
> ppc32 to boot MacOS, although there is some interest on using 64-bit KVM-PR to run
> super-fast MacOS on modern Talos hardware.
>
> From my perspective losing the ability to run 64-bit guests on 32-bit hardware
> with TCG wouldn't be an issue, as long as it were still possible to use
> qemu-system-ppc on 32-bit hardware using both TCG and KVM to help debug the
> remaining issues.
Hi Mark!
Just out of curiosity (since we briefly talked about 32-bit KVM on ppc in today's
QEMU/KVM call - in the context of whether qemu-system-ppc64 is a proper superset of
qemu-system-ppc when it comes to building a unified qemu-system binary): What host
machine are you using for running KVM-PR? And which QEMU machine are you using for
running macOS? The mac99 or the g3beige machine?
I'm using a G4 Mac Mini for my KVM experiments running Debian ports which is fairly
up to date e.g. gcc-12 for building QEMU. Both the mac99 and g3beige machines will
boot up to the OS X 10.2 installer on my current (custom) 5.1 kernel.
Unrelated to KVM: Do you happen to know whether there are any
problems when running
32-bit guests with TCG with the mac99 or g3beige machine while using qemu-system-ppc64 ?
I'm not sure as I don't run qemu-system-ppc64 on a regular basis, but I have heard
from people in the past who have happily used it to boot 64-bit Linux.
(goes and turns on the Mac Mini)
A quick test this evening shows that latest git master builds qemu-system-ppc and
runs fine with -accel=kvm on the Mac Mini, however something now asserts with
-accel=tcg on startup which didn't happen before:
Thread 1 "qemu-system-ppc" received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
tcg_tb_alloc (s=0x1) at ../tcg/tcg.c:1025
1025 tb = (void *)ROUND_UP((uintptr_t)s->code_gen_ptr, align);
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00ad4148 in tcg_tb_alloc (s=0x1) at ../tcg/tcg.c:1025
#1 0x00ad34c8 in tcg_context_init (max_cpus=1) at ../tcg/tcg.c:959
#2 0x00ad34c8 in tcg_init (tb_size=0, splitwx=0, max_cpus=max_cpus@entry=1) at
../tcg/tcg.c:1010
#3 0x00b3b784 in tcg_init_machine (ms=<optimized out>) at
../accel/tcg/tcg-all.c:127
#4 0x008dc784 in accel_init_machine (accel=accel@entry=0x159f8c0, ms=0x1538000) at
../accel/accel-softmmu.c:39
#5 0x00869184 in do_configure_accelerator (opaque=opaque@entry=0xbffff2ac,
opts=opts@entry=0x159f4f0, errp=errp@entry=0x13694cc <error_fatal>) at
../softmmu/vl.c:2224
#6 0x00d8e13c in qemu_opts_foreach (list=<optimized out>, func=func@entry=0x869010
<do_configure_accelerator>, opaque=opaque@entry=0xbffff2ac,
errp=errp@entry=0x13694cc
<error_fatal>)
at ../util/qemu-option.c:1135
#7 0x0086c3b4 in configure_accelerators (progname=<optimized out>) at
../softmmu/vl.c:2293
#8 0x0086c3b4 in qemu_init (argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>) at
../softmmu/vl.c:3561
#9 0x0060acd4 in main (argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>) at
../softmmu/main.c:47
Richard, any thoughts on this at all?
ATB,
Mark.
3:11 a.m.
Am 30. Januar 2023 20:45:47 UTC schrieb "Alex Bennée"
<alex.bennee(a)linaro.org>:
Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during the QEMU
>> > contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors stopped
>> > shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware from
>> > the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
>>
>> True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
>> Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
>> I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point where
>> I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
>
> Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the support
> burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched integer
> sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross compile.
>
> I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops in the past,
> or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase ?
Atomic operations on > TARGET_BIT_SIZE and cputlb when
TCG_OVERSIZED_GUEST is set. Also the core TCG code and a bunch of the
backends have TARGET_LONG_BITS > TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS ifdefs peppered
throughout.
Are there any plans or ideas to support 128 bit architectures such as CHERI in the future?
There is already a QEMU fork implementing CHERI for RISC V [1]. Also ARM has developed an
experimental hardware implementation of CHERI within the Morello project where Linaro is
involved as well, although the QEMU implementation is performed by the University of
Cambridge [2].
I'm asking because once we deeply bake in the assumption that host size >= guest
size then adding such architectures will become much harder.
Best regards,
Bernhard
[1] https://github.com/CTSRD-CHERI/qemu
[2]
https://git.morello-project.org/university-of-cambridge/mirrors/qemu/-/tr...
>
> With regards,
> Daniel
3:51 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:11:13AM +0000, Bernhard Beschow wrote:
Am 30. Januar 2023 20:45:47 UTC schrieb "Alex Bennée"
<alex.bennee(a)linaro.org>:
>
>Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:47:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during the
QEMU
>>> > contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors
stopped
>>> > shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware
from
>>> > the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit
>>>
>>> True for x86, not necessarily true for other architectures.
>>> Are you proposing to deprecate x86 32-bit, or all 32-bit?
>>> I'm not entirely sure about whether we're yet at a point where
>>> I'd want to deprecate-and-drop 32-bit arm host support.
>>
>> Do we have a feeling on which aspects of 32-bit cause us the support
>> burden ? The boring stuff like compiler errors from mismatched integer
>> sizes is mostly quick & easy to detect simply through a cross compile.
>>
>> I vaguely recall someone mentioned problems with atomic ops in the past,
>> or was it 128-bit ints, caused implications for the codebase ?
>
>Atomic operations on > TARGET_BIT_SIZE and cputlb when
>TCG_OVERSIZED_GUEST is set. Also the core TCG code and a bunch of the
>backends have TARGET_LONG_BITS > TCG_TARGET_REG_BITS ifdefs peppered
>throughout.
Are there any plans or ideas to support 128 bit architectures
such as CHERI in the future? There is already a QEMU fork
implementing CHERI for RISC V [1]. Also ARM has developed an
experimental hardware implementation of CHERI within the Morello
project where Linaro is involved as well, although the QEMU
implementation is performed by the University of Cambridge [2].
If 128 bit hardware exists and has real world non-toy usage,
then a request to support it in QEMU is essentially inevitable.
I'm asking because once we deeply bake in the assumption that
host size >= guest size then adding such architectures will
become much harder.
Yep, that is a risk.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
6:28 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:51:57AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:11:13AM +0000, Bernhard Beschow wrote:
> Are there any plans or ideas to support 128 bit architectures
> such as CHERI in the future? There is already a QEMU fork
> implementing CHERI for RISC V [1]. Also ARM has developed an
> experimental hardware implementation of CHERI within the Morello
> project where Linaro is involved as well, although the QEMU
> implementation is performed by the University of Cambridge [2].
If 128 bit hardware exists and has real world non-toy usage,
then a request to support it in QEMU is essentially inevitable.
> I'm asking because once we deeply bake in the assumption that
> host size >= guest size then adding such architectures will
> become much harder.
Yep, that is a risk.
I can second that. Better keep it in the code and deal with it. Maybe those
specific parts can be implemented in such a way that it can easily become a
noop on host size >= guest size.
With regards,
Reinoud
7:37 a.m.
Reinoud Zandijk <reinoud(a)NetBSD.org> writes:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:51:57AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:11:13AM +0000, Bernhard Beschow wrote:
> > Are there any plans or ideas to support 128 bit architectures
> > such as CHERI in the future? There is already a QEMU fork
> > implementing CHERI for RISC V [1]. Also ARM has developed an
> > experimental hardware implementation of CHERI within the Morello
> > project where Linaro is involved as well, although the QEMU
> > implementation is performed by the University of Cambridge [2].
>
> If 128 bit hardware exists and has real world non-toy usage,
> then a request to support it in QEMU is essentially inevitable.
>
> > I'm asking because once we deeply bake in the assumption that
> > host size >= guest size then adding such architectures will
> > become much harder.
>
> Yep, that is a risk.
I can second that. Better keep it in the code and deal with it. Maybe those
specific parts can be implemented in such a way that it can easily become a
noop on host size >= guest size.
AIUI these don't expose bigger addresses or natural atomic sizes which
is where things get tricky for the TCG. All the extra bits are used for
authentication or permission checks.
--
Alex Bennée
Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
4:36 a.m.
I feel the discussion petered out without a conclusion.
I don't think letting the status quo win by inertia is a good outcome
here.
Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
Please note my question is not about the cost of keeping them (or
savings from not keeping them), it's about the value they provide. When
value rounds to zero, cost is irrelevant, so let's get a firm idea of
value *first*.
4:40 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
I feel the discussion petered out without a conclusion.
I don't think letting the status quo win by inertia is a good outcome
here.
Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
Please note my question is not about the cost of keeping them (or
savings from not keeping them), it's about the value they provide. When
value rounds to zero, cost is irrelevant, so let's get a firm idea of
value *first*.
With my OS maintainer hat on, 32-bit host support is not relevant
to Fedora[1] or RHEL. Both have dropped all 32-bit host install
support, only maintaining 32-bit builds of some libaries for use
on 64-bit host install, which is not relevant to QEMU's deliverables.
With regards,
Daniel
[1] Arm7 was the last 32-bit host in Fedora, dropped after F36
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
4:45 a.m.
On 2/17/23 11:36, Markus Armbruster wrote:
I feel the discussion petered out without a conclusion.
I don't think letting the status quo win by inertia is a good outcome
here.
Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
Hi Markus,
if the question is very very general, my opinion is that some of the most useful 32-bit
systems are things like ARMv8-R capable systems for deeply embedded real time
applications.
Ciao,
Claudio
4:47 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
I feel the discussion petered out without a conclusion.
I don't think letting the status quo win by inertia is a good outcome
here.
Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
Which 32-bit hosts does Linux still provide KVM support for.
If any, is there an EOL date for Linux 32-bit KVM support ?
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
5:05 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
Citing my previous mail:
I now checked all downloads of the latests installers since 2022-12-30.
qemu-w32-setup-20221230.exe – 509 different IP addresses
qemu-w64-setup-20221230.exe - 5471 different IP addresses
339 unique IP addresses are common for 32- and 64-bit, either
crawlers or people who simply got both variants. So there remain 170
IP addresses which only downloaded the 32-bit variant in the last week.
I see 437 different strings for the browser type, but surprisingly
none of them looks like a crawler.
So there still seems to be a certain small need for QEMU installers for
32-bit Windows: 170 users für 32 bit only, 339 users for both 32 and 64
bit, 5132 users for 64 bit only.
Stefan
5:43 a.m.
Stefan Weil <sw(a)weilnetz.de> writes:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
Citing my previous mail:
I now checked all downloads of the latests installers since 2022-12-30.
qemu-w32-setup-20221230.exe – 509 different IP addresses
qemu-w64-setup-20221230.exe - 5471 different IP addresses
339 unique IP addresses are common for 32- and 64-bit, either
crawlers or people who simply got both variants. So there remain 170
IP addresses which only downloaded the 32-bit variant in the last week.
I see 437 different strings for the browser type, but surprisingly
none of them looks like a crawler.
So there still seems to be a certain small need for QEMU installers for 32-bit Windows:
170 users für 32 bit only, 339 users for both 32 and 64 bit, 5132 users for 64 bit only.
Actual data is always welcome!
I wonder, though... given how decrepit 32-bit-only PCs must now be, and
how well Windows 10 (the only version still supporting them) runs on
these, how many downloaders of the w32 version could (and quite probably
should) use the w64 version instead?
5:47 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:05:46PM +0100, Stefan Weil wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
Citing my previous mail:
I now checked all downloads of the latests installers since 2022-12-30.
qemu-w32-setup-20221230.exe – 509 different IP addresses
qemu-w64-setup-20221230.exe - 5471 different IP addresses
339 unique IP addresses are common for 32- and 64-bit, either
crawlers or people who simply got both variants. So there remain 170
IP addresses which only downloaded the 32-bit variant in the last week.
I see 437 different strings for the browser type, but surprisingly
none of them looks like a crawler.
So there still seems to be a certain small need for QEMU installers for
32-bit Windows: 170 users für 32 bit only, 339 users for both 32 and 64 bit,
5132 users for 64 bit only.
The question which is hard/impossible to answer is whether the people
who downloaded the 32-bit build genuinely needed a 32-bit build or
just did so out of habit or confusion.
I know you can't believe everything you see with statistics, but as an
example, the chart at the bottom of this page suggests new deployments
of 32-bit Windows are negligible today:
https://www.pcbenchmarks.net/os-marketshare.html
there are existing deployments not accounted for there, but that may
still suggest many of the 32-bit downloads of QEMU will end up being
run on 64-bit hosts.
If we were to apply our support platform rule of only targetting the
latest 2 versions of the OS, this limits our targets to Win 10 and
Win 11. Windows 11 dropped 32-bit IIUC, so we're talking about
32-bit installs of Windows 10 only - even in Win10 days all new
physical hardware would have been 64-bit capable.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
5:27 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:05:46PM +0100, Stefan Weil wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
Citing my previous mail:
I now checked all downloads of the latests installers since 2022-12-30.
qemu-w32-setup-20221230.exe – 509 different IP addresses
qemu-w64-setup-20221230.exe - 5471 different IP addresses
339 unique IP addresses are common for 32- and 64-bit, either
crawlers or people who simply got both variants. So there remain 170
IP addresses which only downloaded the 32-bit variant in the last week.
I see 437 different strings for the browser type, but surprisingly
none of them looks like a crawler.
So there still seems to be a certain small need for QEMU installers for
32-bit Windows: 170 users für 32 bit only, 339 users for both 32 and 64 bit,
5132 users for 64 bit only.
As you seem to have access to download stats could you check generic download
stats too i.e. not only for Windows installers?
Also, how do you account for all 32 bit host downloads from say mirrors or the
source code downloads that are compiled and redistributed by 3rd parties for
32 bit hosts?
Although I am not that happy with dropping support on any platform I don't
think such a decision should be taken that lightly.
Maybe a change in the test setup would be handier? I.e. only test 32 bit hosts
say once a 2 days and the 64 bit hosts each day?
Reinoud
6:12 a.m.
Am 19.02.23 um 12:27 schrieb Reinoud Zandijk:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:05:46PM +0100, Stefan Weil wrote:
> So there still seems to be a certain small need for QEMU installers for
> 32-bit Windows: 170 users für 32 bit only, 339 users for both 32 and 64 bit,
> 5132 users for 64 bit only.
As you seem to have access to download stats could you check generic download
stats too i.e. not only for Windows installers?
Sorry, but I only have statistics for my own server
https://qemu.weilnetz.de/ which provides Windows installers.
Stefan
10:38 a.m.
On 2/17/23 11:47, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> I feel the discussion petered out without a conclusion.
>
> I don't think letting the status quo win by inertia is a good outcome
> here.
>
> Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
Which 32-bit hosts does Linux still provide KVM support for.
All except ARM: MIPS, x86, PPC and RISC-V.
I would like to remove x86, but encountered some objections.
MIPS, nobody is really using it I think.
So that leaves PPC and RISC-V.
If any, is there an EOL date for Linux 32-bit KVM support ?
No, and I don't think there's going to be one.
Paolo
11:43 a.m.
(Cc'ing Huacai & Jiaxun).
On 17/2/23 17:38, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:47, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> I feel the discussion petered out without a conclusion.
>>
>> I don't think letting the status quo win by inertia is a good outcome
>> here.
>>
>> Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
>
> Which 32-bit hosts does Linux still provide KVM support for.
All except ARM: MIPS, x86, PPC and RISC-V.
I would like to remove x86, but encountered some objections.
MIPS, nobody is really using it I think.
32-bit was added in 2014, commit 222e7d11e7 ("target-mips: Enable KVM
support in build system"). I'm not aware of anybody using it (even
testing it). I don't have hardware to test it (neither time).
We are still cross-compiling it although.
64-bit support was added recently (see commit aa2953fd16 "configure:
Add KVM target support for MIPS64") and is used (see commit fbc5884ce2
"meson.build: Re-enable KVM support for MIPS" from 2020), however I
tend to see it more as hobbyist use than production one. Besides it
is listed as 'Odd Fixes' in MAINTAINERS (still 2020, commit 134f7f7da1
"MAINTAINERS: Reactivate MIPS KVM CPUs").
So that leaves PPC and RISC-V.
> If any, is there an EOL date for Linux 32-bit KVM support ?
No, and I don't think there's going to be one.
Paolo
12:57 p.m.
On 17/02/2023 18.43, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
(Cc'ing Huacai & Jiaxun).
On 17/2/23 17:38, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 2/17/23 11:47, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> I feel the discussion petered out without a conclusion.
>>>
>>> I don't think letting the status quo win by inertia is a good outcome
>>> here.
>>>
>>> Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
>>
>> Which 32-bit hosts does Linux still provide KVM support for.
>
> All except ARM: MIPS, x86, PPC and RISC-V.
>
> I would like to remove x86, but encountered some objections.
>
> MIPS, nobody is really using it I think.
32-bit was added in 2014, commit 222e7d11e7 ("target-mips: Enable KVM
support in build system"). I'm not aware of anybody using it (even
testing it). I don't have hardware to test it (neither time).
Could you maybe suggest a kernel patch to remove it, to see what happens?
... if nobody objects to the removal of the 32-bit MIPS KVM kernel support
and the patch gets merged, that would help us in the long run, I think.
Thanks,
Thomas
4:54 p.m.
在2023年2月17日二月 下午6:57，Thomas Huth写道：
On 17/02/2023 18.43, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> (Cc'ing Huacai & Jiaxun).
>
> On 17/2/23 17:38, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 2/17/23 11:47, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>> I feel the discussion petered out without a conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think letting the status quo win by inertia is a good
outcome
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
>>>
>>> Which 32-bit hosts does Linux still provide KVM support for.
>>
>> All except ARM: MIPS, x86, PPC and RISC-V.
>>
>> I would like to remove x86, but encountered some objections.
>>
>> MIPS, nobody is really using it I think.
>
> 32-bit was added in 2014, commit 222e7d11e7 ("target-mips: Enable KVM
> support in build system"). I'm not aware of anybody using it (even
> testing it). I don't have hardware to test it (neither time).
Could you maybe suggest a kernel patch to remove it, to see what happens?
... if nobody objects to the removal of the 32-bit MIPS KVM kernel support
and the patch gets merged, that would help us in the long run, I think.
I’m still occasionally testing 32-bit MIPS KVM support with MIPS P5600.
It works just fine so there is no need for further maintenance work.
I’d be sad to see the support go but I can live with it.
There are commercial users for MIPS 32 KVM but they’re all running customized downstream
QEMU so I guess it’s fine.
Thanks
- Jiaxun
Thanks,
Thomas
--
- Jiaxun
1:49 p.m.
On 17/02/2023 17.38, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:47, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> I feel the discussion petered out without a conclusion.
>>
>> I don't think letting the status quo win by inertia is a good outcome
>> here.
>>
>> Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
>
> Which 32-bit hosts does Linux still provide KVM support for.
All except ARM: MIPS, x86, PPC and RISC-V.
I would like to remove x86, but encountered some objections.
So if I got that right:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/b8fa9561295bb6af2b7fcaa8125c6a3b89b305c7.came...
... the objection is mainly that some kernel developers want to keep the
code around for easier testing of nested 32-bit guests L1 hypervisors.
If that's the only use case that is still around for the 32-bit KVM x86
kernel code, I guess it should also be fine to use older versions of QEMU in
those L1 hypervisor guests (assuming you have to use an older 32-bit Linux
distro for this anyway).
So unless I got that wrong, there is really nobody around anymore who needs
an *upstream* QEMU for running 32-bit x86 KVM hosts, is there?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we can really deprecated at
least qemu-system-i386 and qemu-system-arm now, can't we?
Thanks,
Thomas
10:06 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
I feel the discussion petered out without a conclusion.
I don't think letting the status quo win by inertia is a good outcome
here.
Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
NetBSD runs on a bunch of 32 bit-only hosts (sparc32, ppc32, armv7, vax,
mips32 etc.) that all run Qemu fine. They are all actively maintained and
released as part of the main releases.
Maintaining 32 bit host support is thus vital for those machines; not everyone
runs a 64 bit system.
with regards,
Reinoud Zandijk,
NetBSD developer.
11:20 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 05:06:42PM +0100, Reinoud Zandijk wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> I feel the discussion petered out without a conclusion.
>
> I don't think letting the status quo win by inertia is a good outcome
> here.
>
> Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
NetBSD runs on a bunch of 32 bit-only hosts (sparc32, ppc32, armv7, vax,
mips32 etc.) that all run Qemu fine. They are all actively maintained and
released as part of the main releases.
Maintaining 32 bit host support is thus vital for those machines; not everyone
runs a 64 bit system.
In the context of NetBSD, is QEMU a leaf node package, or is it a
dependancy of anything involved in delivery of the distro ?
ie, if QEMU were to drop 32-bit support, if it is merely a leaf node
package, then end users of NetBSD would not have access to QEMU, but
you would still be able to deliver the rest of NetBSD on those platforms
without the QEMU package present ?
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
12:22 p.m.
On 2/17/23 06:06, Reinoud Zandijk wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> I feel the discussion petered out without a conclusion.
>
> I don't think letting the status quo win by inertia is a good outcome
> here.
>
> Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
NetBSD runs on a bunch of 32 bit-only hosts (sparc32, ppc32, armv7, vax,
mips32 etc.) that all run Qemu fine. They are all actively maintained and
released as part of the main releases.
Are you sure about that? TCG doesn't support sparc32 or vax.
I suppose you could be using TCI, but I can't even imagine how
slow that would be on vax.
r~
5:07 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 08:22:43AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 2/17/23 06:06, Reinoud Zandijk wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:36:41AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > I feel the discussion petered out without a conclusion.
> >
> > I don't think letting the status quo win by inertia is a good outcome
> > here.
> >
> > Which 32-bit hosts are still useful, and why?
>
> NetBSD runs on a bunch of 32 bit-only hosts (sparc32, ppc32, armv7, vax,
> mips32 etc.) that all run Qemu fine. They are all actively maintained and
> released as part of the main releases.
Are you sure about that? TCG doesn't support sparc32 or vax.
I suppose you could be using TCI, but I can't even imagine how
slow that would be on vax.
I've asked around amongst active developers and they steted that they had used
it in the past but not ianymore recently. I doubt normal users would use them
often though since most hardware is 64 bit capable anyways.
Reinoud
5:09 a.m.
On 1/30/23 12:44, Thomas Huth wrote:
Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during
the QEMU
contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors stopped
shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware from
the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit, keeping the 32-bit support alive
is an inadequate burden for the QEMU project. Let's mark the 32-bit
support as deprecated so we can drop it after a while - this will help
us to cut down our limited CI minutes in the gitlab CI, for example.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth(a)redhat.com>
---
docs/about/deprecated.rst | 13 ++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/docs/about/deprecated.rst b/docs/about/deprecated.rst
index 9f1bbc495d..ce6463e72b 100644
--- a/docs/about/deprecated.rst
+++ b/docs/about/deprecated.rst
@@ -181,9 +181,20 @@ As Debian 10 ("Buster") moved into LTS the big endian 32
bit version of
MIPS moved out of support making it hard to maintain our
cross-compilation CI tests of the architecture. As we no longer have
CI coverage support may bitrot away before the deprecation process
-completes. The little endian variants of MIPS (both 32 and 64 bit) are
+completes. The little endian variants of MIPS are
still a supported host architecture.
+32-bit host operating systems (since 8.0)
+'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
+
+Testing 32-bit host OS support takes a lot of precious time during the QEMU
+contiguous integration tests, and considering that many OS vendors stopped
+shipping 32-bit variants of their OS distributions and most hardware from
+the past >10 years is capable of 64-bit, keeping the 32-bit support alive
+is an inadequate burden for the QEMU project. Thus QEMU will soon drop the
+support for 32-bit host systems.
+
+
QEMU API (QAPI) events
----------------------
From our (SUSE) support perspective, we do not support 32bit
virtualization hosts downstream,
and in general I am in favor of the change.
Ciao,
Claudio
410
days inactive
475
days old
44 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
Alex Bennée -
BALATON Zoltan -
Bernhard Beschow -
Claudio Fontana -
Cédric Le Goater -
Daniel P. Berrangé -
Jiaxun Yang -
Mark Cave-Ayland -
Markus Armbruster -
Paolo Bonzini -
Peter Maydell -
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé -
Reinoud Zandijk -
Richard Henderson -
Stefan Weil -
Thomas Huth