Re: x32 abi support?
On 05/17/2012 06:19 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:28:29AM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: x32 makes intel be faster Atom Z2460 [1] I can't find any x86_64/ia32/x32 benchmarks in that article? Regardless, I'd agree that x32 is potentially useful on heavily resource-constrained interactive devices like phones. The quesiton is whether it's useful for any of the platforms that Fedora targets. Virtualisation is something I hadn't considered and it may be that there are benefits there, but I'd still appreciate some real figures before encouraging people to spend time on it. see: x32 - a native 32-bit ABI for x86-64, by H. Peter Anvin. A work-in-progress new ABI for x86 combines the memory footprint of a 32-bit process with the enhanced capabilities of the x86-64 ISA. http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2011/ocw/system/presentations/531/original/x32-LPC-2011-0906.pptx -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 02:28 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Nicolas Chauvet wrote: So that make me wonder if we really need to built the whole collection as x32 ? Or if we only wants a selection of components to be optimized by x32. For example does it matter to move the whole Xorg server infrastructure as x32 or is it possible to leave it as x86_64 ? or is there any benifit for the move to x32 in this area ? As already explained in this thread by others, if you have a mix of x32 and normal x86_64, you end up with both multilibs in memory, negating the memory savings from the bastard x32 ABI. I don't think this is always the case. Obviously if you run a lot of both kinds of apps it matters, but if there are a few, small x86-64 processes (say e.g. the xserver, or a database instance) the doubled mem use from some shared libraries should not affect things overly much. In most practical uses of computers (i.e. those that actually *do* something) most memory is used for the users data, and for that, x32 uses less ram, as all pointers in the ram structures are half the size. Obviously, it all depends. But I think x32 makes a lot of sense as an option, especially in the virtual machine space. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 09:53:12AM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: I don't think this is always the case. Obviously if you run a lot of both kinds of apps it matters, but if there are a few, small x86-64 processes (say e.g. the xserver, or a database instance) the doubled mem use from some shared libraries should not affect things overly much. In most practical uses of computers (i.e. those that actually *do* something) most memory is used for the users data, and for that, x32 uses less ram, as all pointers in the ram structures are half the size. Obviously, it all depends. But I think x32 makes a lot of sense as an option, especially in the virtual machine space. Can we get some definite numbers? -- Tomasz Torcz God, root, what's the difference? xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl God is more forgiving. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:28:29AM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: Matthew Garrett wrote: [...] So, overall, x32 is only really beneficial for embedded platforms rather than general purpose ones. As Josh says, if there's sufficient interest then it could potentially be implemented as a separate architecture and spend some time in secondary, but I don't know that there'd be a huge benefit to Fedora to spend much time on it. x32 makes intel be faster Atom Z2460 [1] I can't find any x86_64/ia32/x32 benchmarks in that article? Regardless, I'd agree that x32 is potentially useful on heavily resource-constrained interactive devices like phones. The quesiton is whether it's useful for any of the platforms that Fedora targets. Virtualisation is something I hadn't considered and it may be that there are benefits there, but I'd still appreciate some real figures before encouraging people to spend time on it. I believe you would lose a lot of the advantages of the memory reduction by the use of memory dedupe/merging/compression on the host hypervisor which makes some of the memory saving advantage less of a win. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl writes:
[...] Can we get some definite numbers?
Yeah, not enough of those going around. A quick test with systemtap,
a typical pointer/datastructure-heavy program, on same x86-64 machine,
compiled with -m64 and -m32, same workload. It parses /proc/self/statm.
64-bit
./stap -p4 -v -e 'probe syscall.* { println($$vars$)}'
Pass 1: ... using 201380virt/24228res/2896shr/21564data kb, ...
Pass 2: ... using 492512virt/277164res/92932shr/184036data kb, ...
Pass 3: ... using 492512virt/277288res/93056shr/184036data kb, ...
32-bit
./stap -p4 -v -e 'probe syscall.* { println($$vars$)}'
Pass 1: ... using 26752virt/15732res/2560shr/13196data kb, ...
Pass 2: ... using 260524virt/213144res/92632shr/120352data kb, ...
Pass 3: ... using 260524virt/213264res/92752shr/120352data kb, ...
I tried corresponding tests, eyeballing top while running
gcc/emacs/firefox: same pattern, around 50% more data usage.
- FChE
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On 05/17/2012 04:37 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl writes: [...] Can we get some definite numbers? Yeah, not enough of those going around. A quick test with systemtap, a typical pointer/datastructure-heavy program, on same x86-64 machine, compiled with -m64 and -m32, same workload. What workload, though? Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:30:23PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of x32 containers/VM on an x86_64 host. Most server software that is run in containers/VMs does not require 64bit address space, and hence using x32 for them should be quite benificial so that you can run more containers/VMs per host. After all this would reduce memory and CPU consumption of each, and due to smaller memory usage also result in less IO? I was under the impression that it was to make Android work better on Intel. Scalable VMs are an interesting idea, but for a typical session how much RAM are we talking about? ... and also how does it compare to other (better IMHO) approaches such as KSM? Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
Hi. On Thu, 17 May 2012 19:28:04 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote I was under the impression that it was to make Android work better on Intel. Scalable VMs are an interesting idea, but for a typical session how much RAM are we talking about? ... and also how does it compare to other (better IMHO) approaches such as KSM? Well, not having to use RAM in the first place beats crawling through every page on the hypervisor trying to find pages to consolidate in my book. Anyway the two things are orthogonal. -- Why do kamikazi pilots wear helmets? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
x32 abi support?
I noticed this article: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk Has this been discussed on fedora? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote: I noticed this article: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk Has this been discussed on fedora? Not that I've seen. Also, the article is either incomplete or incorrect, as full x32 support for glibc hasn't landed yet. Upstream is still working on that and it might get in for glibc-2.16. If this were to come to Fedora, I would expect it to start as a secondary architecture. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:18:32AM -0400, Neal Becker wrote: I noticed this article: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk Has this been discussed on fedora? x32 is mostly beneficial in that it reduces pointer size and so memory consumption, with the side benefit that it may also provide slightly higher performance due to being able to fit more in cache. But this is only true for a pure x32 system. If you have any applications that need to be 64-bit (ie, anything that is going to need more than 4GB of address space, which is very different from needing more than 4GB of RAM) then you need to have two copies of your libraries and suddenly your memory benefits have entirely vanished. So, overall, x32 is only really beneficial for embedded platforms rather than general purpose ones. As Josh says, if there's sufficient interest then it could potentially be implemented as a separate architecture and spend some time in secondary, but I don't know that there'd be a huge benefit to Fedora to spend much time on it. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Wed, 16.05.12 14:31, Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:18:32AM -0400, Neal Becker wrote: I noticed this article: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk Has this been discussed on fedora? x32 is mostly beneficial in that it reduces pointer size and so memory consumption, with the side benefit that it may also provide slightly higher performance due to being able to fit more in cache. But this is only true for a pure x32 system. If you have any applications that need to be 64-bit (ie, anything that is going to need more than 4GB of address space, which is very different from needing more than 4GB of RAM) then you need to have two copies of your libraries and suddenly your memory benefits have entirely vanished. So, overall, x32 is only really beneficial for embedded platforms rather than general purpose ones. As Josh says, if there's sufficient interest then it could potentially be implemented as a separate architecture and spend some time in secondary, but I don't know that there'd be a huge benefit to Fedora to spend much time on it. Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of x32 containers/VM on an x86_64 host. Most server software that is run in containers/VMs does not require 64bit address space, and hence using x32 for them should be quite benificial so that you can run more containers/VMs per host. After all this would reduce memory and CPU consumption of each, and due to smaller memory usage also result in less IO? I'd assume that Fedora is supposed to be suitable to build highly scalable virtualized hosts, so I'd also assume that x32 should be very much in focus for us? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of x32 containers/VM on an x86_64 host. Most server software that is run in containers/VMs does not require 64bit address space, and hence using x32 for them should be quite benificial so that you can run more containers/VMs per host. After all this would reduce memory and CPU consumption of each, and due to smaller memory usage also result in less IO? I was under the impression that it was to make Android work better on Intel. Scalable VMs are an interesting idea, but for a typical session how much RAM are we talking about? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
mjg59 wrote: [...] If you have any applications that need to be 64-bit (ie, anything that is going to need more than 4GB of address space, which is very different from needing more than 4GB of RAM) then you need to have two copies of your libraries and suddenly your memory benefits have entirely vanished. [...] This is not clear to me. The unwelcome duplication for this case would consist only of the 64-bit shared libraries' own text data - and not the data of the 64-bit apps themselves. Thus having x32 on the system is still a win *if* the memory savings from the x32 apps is larger than the duplicated 64-bit shlib text/data. - FChE -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Wed, 16.05.12 15:30, Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) wrote: Heya, (added hpa to CC, who appears to be behind x32 upstream) On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of x32 containers/VM on an x86_64 host. Most server software that is run in containers/VMs does not require 64bit address space, and hence using x32 for them should be quite benificial so that you can run more containers/VMs per host. After all this would reduce memory and CPU consumption of each, and due to smaller memory usage also result in less IO? I was under the impression that it was to make Android work better on Intel. Scalable VMs are an interesting idea, but for a typical session how much RAM are we talking about? I have no idea. hpa did a talk about it last year at LPC, where the one line summary is: A work-in-progress new ABI for x86 combines the memory footprint of a 32-bit process with the enhanced capabilities of the x86-64 ISA. http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2011/ocw/sessions/531 I didn't attend the talk, but I figure if hpa claims it lowers memory footprint (and puts this in the oneline summary) then he has some statistics and other data to back it up? Peter, can you give us some background? What's the influence of x32 on the memory consumption, in comparison to x86_64? Is x32 useful as a technology to increase scalability on virtualized systems? Thanks, Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of x32 containers/VM on an x86_64 host. Most server software that is run in containers/VMs does not require 64bit address space, and hence using x32 for them should be quite benificial so that you can run more containers/VMs per host. After all this would reduce memory and CPU consumption of each, and due to smaller memory usage also result in less IO? Note that x32 is less secure than x86-64, the possible address space randomization is much more limited there, while there is ASCII armor, it can protect just a couple of libraries, unlikely all of them. With LP64 certain kinds of exploits are harder. And, for various programs you usually don't need 64-bit address space, but in the case where you have say bigger input you are simply out of luck if you are limited to 32-bit address space. Say with compilers/linkers, you can usually compile smaller stuff just fine with 32-bit compiler, but if you have some larger source code, x32 won't do it. Similarly various other programs that don't have constant memory requirements, but linear (or worse) with the size of the input. Jakub -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: And, for various programs you usually don't need 64-bit address space, but in the case where you have say bigger input you are simply out of luck if you are limited to 32-bit address space. Say with compilers/linkers, you can usually compile smaller stuff just fine with 32-bit compiler, but if you have some larger source code, x32 won't do it. Similarly various other programs that don't have constant memory requirements, but linear (or worse) with the size of the input. It's for this reason (and the multilib memory bloat) that I was really disappointed to see x32 created. 32bit of an addressable space is a real limitation on modern machines— and completely reasonable software which is linear in input size is simply less useful on 32 bit machines. If it ever comes up that Fedora wants to further limit the usability of the i686 with older machines (e.g. by adding a SSE2 requirement), then perhaps it would be instead better to replace i686 with x32... but otherwise I think it would be really unfortunate to end up subjecting fedora users to the 32bit vm limits who otherwise might not be. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said: It's for this reason (and the multilib memory bloat) that I was really disappointed to see x32 created. 32bit of an addressable space is a real limitation on modern machines— and completely reasonable software which is linear in input size is simply less useful on 32 bit machines. If it ever comes up that Fedora wants to further limit the usability of the i686 with older machines (e.g. by adding a SSE2 requirement), then perhaps it would be instead better to replace i686 with x32... but otherwise I think it would be really unfortunate to end up subjecting fedora users to the 32bit vm limits who otherwise might not be. Plus, there's the minor incompatible with every single existing piece of i686/x86_32 software that exists in the wild. While Fedora isn't directly targeting the existence of third-party or local software, a new 32-bit option that breaks it all isn't the most polite. It's why it would be much more useful for something like spinning up a new embedded target rather than switching an existing userbase. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
Neal Becker wrote: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk Has this been discussed on fedora? Yes: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-January/148092.html The answer was no. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 15:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of x32 containers/VM on an x86_64 host. Most server software that is run in containers/VMs does not require 64bit address space, and hence using x32 for them should be quite benificial so that you can run more containers/VMs per host. After all this would reduce memory and CPU consumption of each, and due to smaller memory usage also result in less IO? I was under the impression that it was to make Android work better on Intel. Scalable VMs are an interesting idea, but for a typical session how much RAM are we talking about? If you look at some contemporary VM hosting providers, like e.g.: http://bloggerkhan.com/vps-hosting-vps-servers/185 You'll see that most of them are in the 384-1024 meg of ram range, and almost none are larger than 4 gigs. I'm sure most of these run 32bit images, but the hosts are likely 64bit, so it seems to make quite some sense to use an x32 ABI here. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 15:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of x32 containers/VM on an x86_64 host. Most server software that is run in containers/VMs does not require 64bit address space, and hence using x32 for them should be quite benificial so that you can run more containers/VMs per host. After all this would reduce memory and CPU consumption of each, and due to smaller memory usage also result in less IO? I was under the impression that it was to make Android work better on Intel. Scalable VMs are an interesting idea, but for a typical session how much RAM are we talking about? If you look at some contemporary VM hosting providers, like e.g.: http://bloggerkhan.com/vps-hosting-vps-servers/185 You'll see that most of them are in the 384-1024 meg of ram range, and almost none are larger than 4 gigs. I'm sure most of these run 32bit images, but the hosts are likely 64bit, so it seems to make quite some sense to use an x32 ABI here. Can x32 run i686 software (multilib) ? Because not being able to run existing software might be a reason for many to want such a host. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 21:37 +0200, drago01 wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 15:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of x32 containers/VM on an x86_64 host. Most server software that is run in containers/VMs does not require 64bit address space, and hence using x32 for them should be quite benificial so that you can run more containers/VMs per host. After all this would reduce memory and CPU consumption of each, and due to smaller memory usage also result in less IO? I was under the impression that it was to make Android work better on Intel. Scalable VMs are an interesting idea, but for a typical session how much RAM are we talking about? If you look at some contemporary VM hosting providers, like e.g.: http://bloggerkhan.com/vps-hosting-vps-servers/185 You'll see that most of them are in the 384-1024 meg of ram range, and almost none are larger than 4 gigs. I'm sure most of these run 32bit images, but the hosts are likely 64bit, so it seems to make quite some sense to use an x32 ABI here. Can x32 run i686 software (multilib) ? Because not being able to run existing software might be a reason for many to want such a host. x32 is not a kernel, so it doesn't run software. The kernel you run is a standard x86-64 one which can access all your physical memory, then you have a 32bit userspace mode similar to i386-on-x86-64 but with a different ABI that lets it use more x86-64 features while only using 32bit pointers (so each process can only use 4 gig of virtual memory). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
2012/5/16 Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote: I noticed this article: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk Has this been discussed on fedora? Not that I've seen. Also, the article is either incomplete or incorrect, as full x32 support for glibc hasn't landed yet. Upstream is still working on that and it might get in for glibc-2.16. If this were to come to Fedora, I would expect it to start as a secondary architecture. Secondary arch suggests the whole fedora collection is built with x32 ABI. But there is one noticeable exception with that; as I understood:the kernel will anyway remains at x86_64. So that make me wonder if we really need to built the whole collection as x32 ? Or if we only wants a selection of components to be optimized by x32. For example does it matter to move the whole Xorg server infrastructure as x32 or is it possible to leave it as x86_64 ? or is there any benifit for the move to x32 in this area ? Nicolas (kwizart) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
drago01 drag...@gmail.com writes: [...] Can x32 run i686 software (multilib) ? Because not being able to run existing software might be a reason for many to want such a host. x32 is not a different cpu architecture. It's a software ABI to run on x86-64, especially suited for smaller-memory machines/processes. That same x86-64 cpu/kernel can run i686, x86-64, x32 software. - FChE -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Nicolas Chauvet kwiz...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/5/16 Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote: I noticed this article: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTEwMTk Has this been discussed on fedora? Not that I've seen. Also, the article is either incomplete or incorrect, as full x32 support for glibc hasn't landed yet. Upstream is still working on that and it might get in for glibc-2.16. If this were to come to Fedora, I would expect it to start as a secondary architecture. Secondary arch suggests the whole fedora collection is built with x32 ABI. But there is one noticeable exception with that; as I understood:the kernel will anyway remains at x86_64. The kernel is x86_64, with support for the x32 ABI, yes. So that make me wonder if we really need to built the whole collection as x32 ? Or if we only wants a selection of components to be optimized by x32. For example does it matter to move the whole Xorg server infrastructure as x32 or is it possible to leave it as x86_64 ? or is there any benifit for the move to x32 in this area ? You can't link x32 binaries against i686/x86_64 libraries, etc. You need entirely separate userspace. From a Fedora perspective, the way to do that is to add an architecture to koji and build whatever you want. That arch add should start as secondary. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
Matthew Garrett wrote: [...] So, overall, x32 is only really beneficial for embedded platforms rather than general purpose ones. As Josh says, if there's sufficient interest then it could potentially be implemented as a separate architecture and spend some time in secondary, but I don't know that there'd be a huge benefit to Fedora to spend much time on it. x32 makes intel be faster Atom Z2460 [1] *Intel vs. ARM* . The next war on mobile devices, stay tuned [1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/5770/lava-xolo-x900-review-the-first-intel-medfield-phone -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
Nicolas Chauvet wrote: So that make me wonder if we really need to built the whole collection as x32 ? Or if we only wants a selection of components to be optimized by x32. For example does it matter to move the whole Xorg server infrastructure as x32 or is it possible to leave it as x86_64 ? or is there any benifit for the move to x32 in this area ? As already explained in this thread by others, if you have a mix of x32 and normal x86_64, you end up with both multilibs in memory, negating the memory savings from the bastard x32 ABI. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: x32 abi support?
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:28:29AM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: Matthew Garrett wrote: [...] So, overall, x32 is only really beneficial for embedded platforms rather than general purpose ones. As Josh says, if there's sufficient interest then it could potentially be implemented as a separate architecture and spend some time in secondary, but I don't know that there'd be a huge benefit to Fedora to spend much time on it. x32 makes intel be faster Atom Z2460 [1] I can't find any x86_64/ia32/x32 benchmarks in that article? Regardless, I'd agree that x32 is potentially useful on heavily resource-constrained interactive devices like phones. The quesiton is whether it's useful for any of the platforms that Fedora targets. Virtualisation is something I hadn't considered and it may be that there are benefits there, but I'd still appreciate some real figures before encouraging people to spend time on it. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
