Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 12:08:12 -0500 (EST) From: Al <al@datazap.net> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Timothy Pearson <tpearson@raptorengineering.com>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: When the dream becomes a nightmare was:[Re: What's the plan for powerpc64 in FreeBSD 16] Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.2511181131410.1627@agnus.datazap.net> In-Reply-To: <aRxUa5u1ZKrTTt1b@kib.kiev.ua> References: <1795409779.114152.1763457185418.JavaMail.zimbra@raptorengineeringinc.com> <875004641.116392.1763457737172.JavaMail.zimbra@raptorengineeringinc.com> <aRxF5b9HIBKw3h8D@kib.kiev.ua> <1827088521.116443.1763460735444.JavaMail.zimbra@raptorengineeringinc.com> <aRxUa5u1ZKrTTt1b@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Honestly, I have spent years on powerpc64 and have hired several programmers to help with some of the bug fixes at no small expense. This is both time and money that I won't get back. What makes it worst is that I needed powerpc32 to do my first install, so even removing this hurts. I really don't think that you can see how many downloads of powerpc there is because most of the time I downloaded source. In fact, I have done 100's of downloads and 10 of thousands of updates with git. I can't commit, so everything was given and then committed by someone else. There is plenty of new powerpc hardware. I mean the power 11 was just released, so I am trying to understand why this is so important to a few people to have it removed. I would be happy to provided hosting for powerpc port, if it is all about money. Really, I think it is about something else. Also, it need to be on powerpc because I don't own any i386 hardware anymore. Kind Regards, Al On Tue, 18 Nov 2025, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 13:11:39 +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 > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 04:12:15AM -0600, Timothy Pearson wrote: >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> 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> >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 4:09:41 AM >>> Subject: Re: What's the plan for powerpc64 in FreeBSD 16 >> >>> 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. >> >> I don't see why not. This is exactly the reason we have FTE resources assigned to maintain the software ecosystem for ppc64 -- if there are any other such issues just let me know and I'll make sure they get fixed. > > Great. > In fact, I went ahead and drafted the change I want, in > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D53801 > > I am not sure if this is needed for both ppc and ppc64/ppc64le. > Also I did not handled other arches until ppc part is finalized. > > Could you please get somebody answer the question above, and then > have the patch tested, please? >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.4.64.2511181131410.1627>