From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Thu Feb 28 22:55:02 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0ED151D1C0 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 22:55:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-qt1-x834.google.com (mail-qt1-x834.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::834]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05BEE8E2D1 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 22:55:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-qt1-x834.google.com with SMTP id v10so25620725qtp.8 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:55:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DVxF1t91VgUNhq2bPd3LMPoWmodLLWC/5Y7OFS0G7aQ=; b=GGgehzLjLn+auRssq1xQHkt2664hz3vLfl0E6WlCTou/LrUjRzNmsk0OdzOzxD79gC ThLRTqdZ8R/AFZAuxr6P7x5q1RXm60sFBsor/RBiycwsumWQccfth/IBreOcObuOsS4h vOwYSmNdAyLMoX/A7VLl84eZ/O1JLTlotn5OGl5qMPsHvlVRrKIVGWJBKTw4h4YjgJX0 IWTWBsXlDyUoRYBaeQGaDGPl1Lw22w8MJSvvwIdwRMnBXpODjX91NW+KeUzmVp2vlDq1 lVTYcaVbK8NyUYtvHHAohEHwYk9UO4afE4SGZBHUXysdKZLVWj9XgePTxhQXRZWCxXIB o/iA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DVxF1t91VgUNhq2bPd3LMPoWmodLLWC/5Y7OFS0G7aQ=; b=MABtCPl4fELqfoI8fgyz1E5kZ7Whf/P9cVkixiQNW6Z8oRgrQ4aQRj5GFxUuhzbpWn rTVRTaES2/r4qVcear2SumbVmPvM9q3gN8WS17bS+1ViQRKydhENDfgs6DNI/hoPeF7T vWcFoX1XOqZg2fhFJ/mNuHIqVnZYa48xiFjchuXqwPeNzSZIaPvuXkksOH5UGHT8Qv5m UhVLv9z8w1AzDU8e0LUu91V2vTPO78JGE2t6+wiLQDr6NcURjeYDOSr6yBUah9MLOAwG sPrv6IxcLXUSlarNt0waa4DNZgJm5E1jNmDtTYnD4H8fWRgnc2ddB1hM+N/smk8jRnKD ek5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXVuEEgz+FkjlqVl8lu+YgnXuzxv2EnYtW4zF/NOwVEskjRMRt/ XZJGNTmavN0B3fZ2eUsCVuCbj+VRHkM4+NUZh8Vrtg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqygBQMBB2yLDym78DxRxRzOUX4O24sS1BdTIbHjQ0O2kNVKm1GgufKcpdWJ4pdN0erYuG1lvyaJKyW/sCkaTV4= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:b68a:: with SMTP id u10mr1359573qvd.57.1551394500367; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:55:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190222033924.GA25285@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20190222060410.GA25817@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20190223032644.GA14058@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20190223163947.GB18805@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20190228183214.GA17372@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <55eb26fb977fe90e323a8721e39bfc0185d994ba.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <55eb26fb977fe90e323a8721e39bfc0185d994ba.camel@freebsd.org> From: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:54:49 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: r343567 aka PAE vs non-PAE merge breaks i386 freebsd To: Ian Lepore Cc: "Conrad E. Meyer" , Steve Kargl , John Baldwin , freebsd-current X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 05BEE8E2D1 X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=GGgehzLj X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.58 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:s=20150623]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-current@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[bsdimp.com]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:+]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: ALT1.aspmx.l.google.com]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[4.3.8.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.88)[-0.883,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; IP_SCORE(-2.69)[ip: (-8.63), ipnet: 2607:f8b0::/32(-2.71), asn: 15169(-2.03), country: US(-0.07)]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 22:55:02 -0000 On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:14 PM Ian Lepore wrote: > On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 11:06 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Steve Kargl > > wrote: > > > This is interesting as well. Does this mean that amd64 is now > > > the only tier 1 platform and all other architectures are after > > > thoughts? > > > > This has been the de facto truth for years. i386 is mostly only > > supported by virtue of sharing code with amd64. There are efforts to > > promote arm64 to Tier 1, but it isn't there yet. Power8+ might be > > another good alternative Tier 1 candidate eventually. None have > > anything like the developer popularity that amd64 enjoys. > > > > > > I have been of the opinion that armv[67] has met all the bullet points > to be a tier-1 arch for several years, but nobody seemed interested in > declaring it so. I concur that armv[67] is the closest thing we have to a second tier 1. arm64 is also quite good, but still has a few more rough edges compared to armv[67]. > Now it'll never happen, because there seems to be > growing momentum to throw everything 32-bit under the bus and declare > freebsd to be a 64-bit-only OS. Netflix wins; those of us building > smaller embedded products will eventually be forced to move to linux. > While there's been some talk, there's too many relevant 32-bit arm chips to toss it out in 13 (planned in 2ish years or 2021) and no i386 in 13 likely would be a stretch as well, so 13 almost certainly will have 32-bit kernels and userland support (though that will require the 32-bit processors support 64-bit atomics to reduce friction). Who know if that will be the case in 4 or 5 years when 14 is branched (so ~2025). Current trends suggest that 32-bits might not be relevant then, but we certainly can't say that for sure today. Warner