Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 12:09:41 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Timothy Pearson <tpearson@raptorengineering.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What's the plan for powerpc64 in FreeBSD 16 Message-ID: <aRxF5b9HIBKw3h8D@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <875004641.116392.1763457737172.JavaMail.zimbra@raptorengineeringinc.com> References: <1795409779.114152.1763457185418.JavaMail.zimbra@raptorengineeringinc.com> <875004641.116392.1763457737172.JavaMail.zimbra@raptorengineeringinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 03:22:17AM -0600, Timothy Pearson wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Timothy Pearson" <tpearson@raptorengineeringinc.com> > > To: "Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 3:13:05 AM > > Subject: Re: What's the plan for powerpc64 in FreeBSD 16 > > > On 11/17/25 10:57, Warner Losh wrote: > >> Greetings, > >> > >> As we're getting close to the release date for FreeBSD 15.0, it's time > >> to take stock of another architectures. This time, I'd like your > >> feedback on the following plans. > >> > >> We'd like to retire powerpc64 and powerpc64le just before the FreeBSD > >> stable/16 branch. > >> > >> This would give powerpc64 another two years of support in main, > >> followed by sustaining support on stable/14 and stable/15 until > >> the end of those branches. > >> > >> We've come to this point because the port is dwindling and we have a > >> cost associated with keeping it around. The number of developers has > >> fallen off so only a couple remain. Issues in powerpc are taking > >> longer and longer to discover and resolve. The hardware has been a > >> huge source of frustration for clusteradmin and we've no alternative > >> for developers. There's only a tiny user base. We have trouble > >> building packages for it. Also, powerpc has a number of interesting > >> features of the architecture that make it the odd arch out. > >> > >> It's also big endian. While that may seem like a reason to keep it > >> around, if we really can't support it and we're not actively testing > >> functionality of the system, then keeping this around actually doesn't > >> help keep us honest. It just gives us a burden we must bear. > >> > >> In my opinion, powerpc64 appears to have already fallen below critical > >> mass, despite being a sentimental favorite for a number of FreeBSD > >> developers. As such, I'd like us to consider planning to retire it > >> before we branch 16. > >> > >> My questions today: Are you using this port? How many people are using > >> it? And what's the installed base? It appears to be somewhat less than > >> that of either i386 or armv7 based on user surveys and popularity at > >> conferences. Also, any other comments you might have. > >> > >> Warner > > > > We are very much using this port on a number of machines, and have plans > > to expand further. We use the powerpc64le port in critical > > infrastructure applications. > > > > While we do not participate in the user surveys for security reasons, > > and many other POWER users may be in a similar situation, I would like > > to offer an alternate means of gauging powerpc64le (as opposed to > > powerpc big endian) via the Debian popularity contest [1]. This clearly > > shows the decline in powerpc64 but also the increase in powerpc64le > > installs -- in fact, at least according to those statistics, powerpc64le > > is about to overtake armel in terms of overall deployment base. > > > > Raptor remains committed to the architecture as a whole, and we have > > resources to assist with development. In fact, we sponsor several > > FreeBSD build machines already in our cloud environment, and have kernel > > developers working on expanding and maintaining the FreeBSD codebase. > > If there is any concern regarding hardware availability or developer > > resources, Raptor is willing and able to assist. > > > > Finally, I do want to point out that this is the only open server-grade > > ISA in existence. This is the main reason Raptor selected it in the > > first place, and why Raptor has remained committed to its overall > > support and containment. As we continue porting to e.g. Xen and other > > operating systems, I would hope that we can reach a point where at least > > the powerpc64le support is not only maintained but is able to be > > promoted to a higher status within FreeBSD. > > > > Thank you! > > > > [1] https://popcon.debian.org/ > > I also wanted to add, I know we had a rough time getting our patches merged into the FreeBSD tree in the past, but you can see recent activity on e.g. in-kernel AES support. This is a direct result of our use case and we do not see any alternative architecture on the horizon that will meet both the self-sovereign and performance requirements of not only our application, but many similar applications with the EU. > > If it helps, I'm willing to step up as a maintainer and make sure that at least powerpc64le does not block the release process. In terms of my credentials in this area, I have been maintaining the powerpc64le port of Chromium for many years, on a far faster release cadence than FreeBSD; I don't foresee any major difficulties in keeping the architecture up to date. > Can we please, as the part of the commitment for the ppc support, have a patch submitted for the rtld wart fix? I mean, we should have properly architectured hook for ppc64 to do the hack in libexec/rtld-elf/rtld.c under the #ifdef powerpc, for auxv renumbering compat.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aRxF5b9HIBKw3h8D>