Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

Thanks for the response and sorry for taking so long to reply.

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Kevin Kofler 
wrote:

> Jeff Backus wrote:
> > Hmm.. Yes, we've had discussions within the SIG re: window managers that
> > support i586/i686, and KDE was on the list of WMs that no longer support
> > our target system. Do these patches/hacks only apply to KDE or do they
> > apply to Qt in general?
>
> The absolute worst is QtWebEngine. Chromium dropped support for non-SSE2
> x86
> years ago, so I had to cumulatively revert a whole bunch of commits that
> removed runtime SSE2 detection where it was present and added some more
> unconditional SSE2 optimizations. And now V8 (the JavaScript engine that
> Chromium relies on) dropped the x87 backend (i.e., the one using x87
> rather
> than SSE2 for floating-point operations, hence working on non-SSE2 x86
> machines) for their JIT entirely (and there is no interpreter-only
> fallback), so I am even stuck trying to port the x87 backend to each new
> Qt
> branch (which uses a newer Chromium and thus a newer V8). This is a huge
> effort, and nobody outside of Fedora cares about non-SSE2 anymore. Even
> distros that claim to support non-SSE2 hardware just ship QtWebEngine as
> SSE2 only. I haven't seen any other distro even picking up my patch, let
> alone working on it. The Fedora Chromium, V8 and Node.js packagers also do
> not care.
>

Wow. Yes, that is a heavy lift. Thank you for your efforts! :) It helps to
see how expensive non-SSE2 support is. Thanks.


> I think Google sucks for desupporting hardware that way, but I also do not
> think maintaining the V8 x87 backend on our own is going to scale in the
> long run. My time is limited and I do not currently see anybody else among
> the Fedora Qt maintainers who is at the same time both able and willing to
> maintain it. (This needs somebody with plenty of free time and with some
> experience working on compilers.)
>

Agreed. Is the only reason to maintain the x87 backend for non-SSE2 support?

So the QtWebEngine no-sse2 patch is definitely going to be dropped from
> F29+, given the FESCo decision on this issue. For F27 and F28, I will look
> into it and see what I can do.
>

Thank you.

Cheers,
Jeff


-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XGXDROC66RS5DGUGQV5NONBJR2TRMRQQ/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Kevin Kofler]

Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> If someone wants keep 32bit fedora alive for pre-sse2 hardware I think
> the only reasonable thing would be to undust the i586 target, then go
> build software which requires sse2 as --target i686 and everything else
> as --target i586, i.e. basically stop the effort to patch software for
> non-sse2 hardware.  pre-sse2 hardware would have the i586 packages
> available only.

Most upstreams that hardcode SSE2 also do not distinguish between various 
i*86. They just check for x86 and use SSE2 instructions there, or even just 
use SSE2 instructions unconditionally (making them entirely x86/x86_64-
only). So --target i586 isn't going to do anything for them. Rust seems to 
be the one case where it would help.

Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/GYH5MNU5IIRRXWS2M6PH7HGKFDLQIP54/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Gerd Hoffmann]

  Hi,

> > effort, and nobody outside of Fedora cares about non-SSE2 anymore. Even 
> > distros that claim to support non-SSE2 hardware just ship QtWebEngine as 
> > SSE2 only. I haven't seen any other distro even picking up my patch, let 
> > alone working on it. The Fedora Chromium, V8 and Node.js packagers also do 
> > not care.
> 
> I suspect Firefox may also be sse2-only, at least indirectly from Rust.
> I just checked the rustc target spec for i686-unknown-linux-gnu, and by
> default it's targeting "pentium4".  There is an i585-unknown-linux-gnu
> which targets only "pentium" though.
> 
> But Firefox has been building with Rust on all arches for over a year
> now, and apparently, nobody has noticed this in practice...

Probably modern web browsers simply don't run with reasonable
performance any more on hardware that old, so nobody is doing that.
Same for most/all other software requiring sse2.

Most pre-sse2 hardware still in use is probably a headless machine
sitting in some corner, running sshd / apache / samba / cups / whatelse,
but no desktop workload.

If someone wants keep 32bit fedora alive for pre-sse2 hardware I think
the only reasonable thing would be to undust the i586 target, then go
build software which requires sse2 as --target i686 and everything else
as --target i586, i.e. basically stop the effort to patch software for
non-sse2 hardware.  pre-sse2 hardware would have the i586 packages
available only.

But I somehow doubt that even that is worth the effort ...

cheers,
  Gerd
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/N4L46UR55TY3F5XBY7EGSLHVPVGRY5IT/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Josh Stone]

On 06/18/2018 07:05 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jeff Backus wrote:
>> Hmm.. Yes, we've had discussions within the SIG re: window managers that
>> support i586/i686, and KDE was on the list of WMs that no longer support
>> our target system. Do these patches/hacks only apply to KDE or do they
>> apply to Qt in general?
> 
> The absolute worst is QtWebEngine. Chromium dropped support for non-SSE2 x86 
> years ago, so I had to cumulatively revert a whole bunch of commits that 
> removed runtime SSE2 detection where it was present and added some more 
> unconditional SSE2 optimizations. And now V8 (the JavaScript engine that 
> Chromium relies on) dropped the x87 backend (i.e., the one using x87 rather 
> than SSE2 for floating-point operations, hence working on non-SSE2 x86 
> machines) for their JIT entirely (and there is no interpreter-only 
> fallback), so I am even stuck trying to port the x87 backend to each new Qt 
> branch (which uses a newer Chromium and thus a newer V8). This is a huge 
> effort, and nobody outside of Fedora cares about non-SSE2 anymore. Even 
> distros that claim to support non-SSE2 hardware just ship QtWebEngine as 
> SSE2 only. I haven't seen any other distro even picking up my patch, let 
> alone working on it. The Fedora Chromium, V8 and Node.js packagers also do 
> not care.

I suspect Firefox may also be sse2-only, at least indirectly from Rust.
I just checked the rustc target spec for i686-unknown-linux-gnu, and by
default it's targeting "pentium4".  There is an i585-unknown-linux-gnu
which targets only "pentium" though.

But Firefox has been building with Rust on all arches for over a year
now, and apparently, nobody has noticed this in practice...
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WS35Z4BIHKXJX6TJSZT5EHOIJFAMYUIL/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Kevin Kofler]

Jeff Backus wrote:
> Hmm.. Yes, we've had discussions within the SIG re: window managers that
> support i586/i686, and KDE was on the list of WMs that no longer support
> our target system. Do these patches/hacks only apply to KDE or do they
> apply to Qt in general?

The absolute worst is QtWebEngine. Chromium dropped support for non-SSE2 x86 
years ago, so I had to cumulatively revert a whole bunch of commits that 
removed runtime SSE2 detection where it was present and added some more 
unconditional SSE2 optimizations. And now V8 (the JavaScript engine that 
Chromium relies on) dropped the x87 backend (i.e., the one using x87 rather 
than SSE2 for floating-point operations, hence working on non-SSE2 x86 
machines) for their JIT entirely (and there is no interpreter-only 
fallback), so I am even stuck trying to port the x87 backend to each new Qt 
branch (which uses a newer Chromium and thus a newer V8). This is a huge 
effort, and nobody outside of Fedora cares about non-SSE2 anymore. Even 
distros that claim to support non-SSE2 hardware just ship QtWebEngine as 
SSE2 only. I haven't seen any other distro even picking up my patch, let 
alone working on it. The Fedora Chromium, V8 and Node.js packagers also do 
not care.

I think Google sucks for desupporting hardware that way, but I also do not 
think maintaining the V8 x87 backend on our own is going to scale in the 
long run. My time is limited and I do not currently see anybody else among 
the Fedora Qt maintainers who is at the same time both able and willing to 
maintain it. (This needs somebody with plenty of free time and with some 
experience working on compilers.)

So the QtWebEngine no-sse2 patch is definitely going to be dropped from 
F29+, given the FESCo decision on this issue. For F27 and F28, I will look 
into it and see what I can do.

Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YYW5KBU7H3PBDNQDB7ZDTFB6C7LT2OQG/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Florian Weimer]

I clarified some aspects of this proposal.

After consulting with Jakub Jelinek, I'm now proposing to use 
“-march=i686 -msse2 -mtune=generic -mfpmath=sse -mstackrealign”.  This 
is very close to previous proposal.  Only a few preprocessor macros are 
different:


@@ -142,3 +142,2 @@
 #define __FLT_RADIX__ 2
-#define __FXSR__ 1
 #define __GCC_ASM_FLAG_OUTPUTS__ 1
@@ -174,2 +173,4 @@
 #define i386 1
+#define __i686 1
+#define __i686__ 1
 #define __INT16_C(c) c
@@ -219,4 +220,2 @@
 #define __INT_WIDTH__ 32
-#define __k8 1
-#define __k8__ 1
 #define __LDBL_DECIMAL_DIG__ 21
@@ -247,2 +246,4 @@
 #define __ORDER_PDP_ENDIAN__ 3412
+#define __pentiumpro 1
+#define __pentiumpro__ 1
 #define __PRAGMA_REDEFINE_EXTNAME 1

We still do not have a way to automatically test for the avoidance of 
post-SSE2 CPU features (be it on i686 or x86_64), and i686 remains an 
alternative architecture.  Like before, unless the x86 SIG wants to 
support non-SSE2 CPUs, they will not have to rebuild the i686 for the 
i686 alternative architecture.  They can use the existing builds we 
create in Koji for the x86_64 multilib compose.


Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6RQPFHTNEE32QHZWYHNBV5WIMA75QJZC/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Florian Weimer  wrote:

> On 06/04/2018 06:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
>
> Thanks for the insight. Yes, I can see the advantages. However, have
>> things really gotten so bad that it justifies ejecting part of the
>> community?
>>
>
> The cost of i686 support is not insignificant.  Most of that happens
> upstream (like features only getting accepted when there's an i386/i686
> implementation).  There's little we can do about that, but:
>
> In fedora, we are also a point of contact for weird bugs which someone
> needs to triage.  I really don't want to do that, but due to the lack of
> secondary architectures, I'm often forced to because i686 breakage brings
> development on architectures which I actually care about to a halt.
>

Makes sense. Are these bugs mostly related to instruction set, size of int,
or something else? (more for my curiosity, don't spend time looking)

I can justify this work if it helps downstream (so that we can be confident
> that customers will be able to run their legacy software going forward).
> But with the current divergence in build flags, it is fairly questionable
> whether my work can deliver such a benefit, and that is frustrating.
>

Yes, I I'm sure it is! I can appreciate the desire to consolidate
configurations.

jeff

-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KQHF2MSR2HYFXZ6JWWK6OMSL76DSVBNZ/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Dennis Gilmore]

El mar, 05-06-2018 a las 15:59 -0400, Adam Jackson escribió:
> On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 13:20 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> 
> > as part of this change I suspect we would need to make kernel
> > changes
> > to stop building a i686 kernel, and all i686 deliverables would
> > stop
> > being made.
> 
> We would?

the change has a few things that indicate to me that it is true

The Release Notes section explicitly claims it is true
Fedora 29 requires an x86-64 system for installation. This includes the
32-bit x86 (i686) packages built primarily for use x86-64 systems.

as well as the CFLAGS changes
The default compiler flags will be switched to -march=x86-64
-mtune=generic -mfpmath=sse -mstackrealign. This enables SSE2 support
with optimal backwards compatibility due to automatic stack
realignment. (16-byte stack alignment was introduced with SSE2 support
in the i386 ABI, but old binaries only provide 4-byte stack alignment.)

if we use -march=x86-64 on 32 bit builds why would it be expected that
code will run okay on any 32 bit x86 machine? So if it is not true that
the code will only run on x86-64 then the change needs to be updated to
reflect what 32 bit systems the code will run on, or we work with the
kernel team, drop support entirely for 32 bit x86 kernels, and work
with releng to drop all 32 bit x86 deliverables.

Florian please update the change so that it reflects the actual
situation.

Dennis





signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/B7D6KFNX546YSDOZHTUBZTVWE2VFRX7Q/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[DJ Delorie]

Michal Schorm  writes:
> Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
> more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software on x86_64 OS?

Among other reasons, 32-bit code can be smaller and faster than 64-bit
code for some applications.  When trying to stuff many containers or VMs
into one server, disk and memory space might be overriding
considerations.  There might be old code that isn't 64-bit aware yet,
and the cost of fixing it might not be justified, especially if there's
an on-disk data format that's 32-bit-centric, or if the authors are
unavailable.  Building only 32-bit code cuts your QA time in half if you
have to support both 32 and 64 bit hosts.  You might have optimizations
written in 32-bit assembly, or libraries that are only available as
32-bit versions.  Or you may rely on someone else's 32-bit code that is
closed source, or abandoned.

That doesn't even touch on the continued need for 32-bit embedded
platforms, where 32-bit things on a 64-bit host can be used as a "cross
development" system.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RIYC4LS42YI3JVSGRDW5UUDYIWSZQBOM/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 7 June 2018 at 09:07, Michal Schorm  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Richard Shaw  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 4:51 AM Michal Schorm  wrote:
>>>
>>> Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
>>> more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software on x86_64 OS?
>>
>> In my case, there are a couple of games that are either older, or just not
>> provided in 64bit so I need a few 32bit libraries in order for the kids to
>> play them.
>
>
> That's what the SRPMs are good aren't hey?
> Shouldn't be much trouble to recompile them fo x86_64.
> Or run the apps / games in virtualized environment. (Not something I'd do
> with latest games, but for sokoban from 1986 shouldn't run into performance
> problems :) )
>
> Am I right?
>
> ( I'm not trying to argue. Just to understand the reasons properly. )

Going outside the entertainment, schools which use Fedora are usually
tied to some 10+ year old 32 bit software that they need for an
engineering project.. but it is also tied with a newer 64 bit
application. While it isn't a Fedora thing, many payroll and finance
systems are a similar mixture of 32 bit old apps and 64 bit new ones.
This means that our downstream (RHEL) has a vested interested in
making sure that works so puts people on it to figure it out.

Software is like words. Language smiths like to spend time and come up
with new words which mean exactly what they are wanting to do. The
people actually needing something done, tend to just stick several
words together and get on with their lives.

>
> --
>
> Michal Schorm
> Associate Software Engineer
> Core Services - Databases Team
> Red Hat
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Richard Shaw  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 4:51 AM Michal Schorm  wrote:
>>>
>>> Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
>>> more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software on x86_64 OS?
>>
>>
>> In my case, there are a couple of games that are either older, or just not
>> provided in 64bit so I need a few 32bit libraries in order for the kids to
>> play them.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard
>>
>> ___
>> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>> List Archives:
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/Z4SWOROXAIRLSPKL7WZHWUAQJZSCPW7I/
>>
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FB62VQV5X2DRG6LVKGW663JDNA6HSBPQ/
>



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5WTKQGYMB3CVOGHWDWSRJGFX4XSXHHAM/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Richard Shaw]

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:17 AM Richard Shaw  wrote:

> The other is The Dark Mod, which is open source but they're still using
> the DOOM 3 graphics engine IIRC and their buildsystem which is still 32bit
> only.
>

HAH! Writing this caused me to google it and apparently with the latest
release there is now a 64bit version. Haven't downloaded or tested yet, but
that's one less reason.

Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/A5R4TNDFG27DHO3OXDLTB7E4VLIQB6EB/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 6:19 AM Jan Pazdziora  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 10:35:34AM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:
> > = Proposed System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64 =
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/i686_Is_For_x86-64
> >
> >
> > Owner(s):
> >   * Florian Weimer 
> >
> >
> > Fedora builds its i686 packages for use on x86-64 systems as multi-lib RPMs.
> >
> >
> >
> > == Detailed description ==
> > Currently, the i686 RPM packages are built in such a way that they are
> > compatible with very old i686 systems, such as the Pentium III.  The
> > only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
> > support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
> > installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> > multi-lib RPMs.  Furthermore, there are reports that the i686 kernel
> > does not run stable on old hardware which is not x86-64-capable (
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/x...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/ZHV6I4IEO7GRYAZ4TUMO5VH2ZHLCNJZQ/
> > ).
> > This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
> > packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
> > x86-64 CPUs.
> >
> >
> > == Scope ==
> > * Proposal owners:
> > Adjust the redhat-rpm-config, gcc, and glibc packages to switch to the
> > new compiler flags. Except for mstackrealign, there is substantial
> > experience with this configuration downstream.
> >
> > * Other developers:
> > Other developers can enable SSE2 optimization in their packages if
> > they want, where this has been a compile-time option only.
> >
> > * Release engineering:
> > https://pagure.io/releng/issues/7543 #7543
> >
> > ** List of deliverables: TBD
> >
> > * Policies and guidelines:
> > i686 is no longer a primary architecture. The Packaging Guidelines do
> > not currently require support for non-SSE2 x86 systems, so no change
> > is required there.
>
> Could the title and nature of this proposed change be modified to
>
> Dropping support for non-SSE2 x86 systems
>
> rather than removing i686 from primary architectures and implying that
> we no longer do i686-only distribution? Reading this thread, the
> SSE2/non-SSE2 distinction is where the change is aiming anyway, isn't
> it?

i686 is already no longer a primary architecture.  We do not block
releases on i686-only issues, which is the only distinction "primary"
has these days.

josh
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/2DIXN64HYE23JHNV3IICMEIBIBBTZJVN/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Richard Shaw]

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:09 AM Michal Schorm  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Richard Shaw  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 4:51 AM Michal Schorm  wrote:
>>
>>> Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
>>> more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software on x86_64 OS?
>>>
>> In my case, there are a couple of games that are either older, or just
>> not provided in 64bit so I need a few 32bit libraries in order for the kids
>> to play them.
>>
>
> That's what the SRPMs are good aren't hey?
> Shouldn't be much trouble to recompile them fo x86_64.
> Or run the apps / games in virtualized environment. (Not something I'd do
> with latest games, but for sokoban from 1986 shouldn't run into performance
> problems :) )
>
> Am I right?
>

If there was a SRPM available it probably would have already been done :)

One is Neverwinter Nights which they released a 32bit linux binary for, but
obviously not FOSS.

The other is The Dark Mod, which is open source but they're still using the
DOOM 3 graphics engine IIRC and their buildsystem which is still 32bit only.

Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BUOVDBQHYDLU5X7RRLH3ZQXD3C7NAOHE/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Michal Schorm]

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Richard Shaw  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 4:51 AM Michal Schorm  wrote:
>
>> Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
>> more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software on x86_64 OS?
>>
> In my case, there are a couple of games that are either older, or just not
> provided in 64bit so I need a few 32bit libraries in order for the kids to
> play them.
>

That's what the SRPMs are good aren't hey?
Shouldn't be much trouble to recompile them fo x86_64.
Or run the apps / games in virtualized environment. (Not something I'd do
with latest games, but for sokoban from 1986 shouldn't run into performance
problems :) )

Am I right?

( I'm not trying to argue. Just to understand the reasons properly. )

--

Michal Schorm
Associate Software Engineer
Core Services - Databases Team
Red Hat

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Richard Shaw  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 4:51 AM Michal Schorm  wrote:
>
>> Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
>> more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software on x86_64 OS?
>>
>
> In my case, there are a couple of games that are either older, or just not
> provided in 64bit so I need a few 32bit libraries in order for the kids to
> play them.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.
> fedoraproject.org/message/Z4SWOROXAIRLSPKL7WZHWUAQJZSCPW7I/
>
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FB62VQV5X2DRG6LVKGW663JDNA6HSBPQ/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Richard Shaw]

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 4:51 AM Michal Schorm  wrote:

> Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
> more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software on x86_64 OS?
>

In my case, there are a couple of games that are either older, or just not
provided in 64bit so I need a few 32bit libraries in order for the kids to
play them.

Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/Z4SWOROXAIRLSPKL7WZHWUAQJZSCPW7I/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Tom Hughes]

Because sometimes the software I'm developing needs to link with
a proprietary library that is only available as 32 bit library.

It's a lot rarer than it used to be but there are still a few
databases that I work with that don't have 64 bit libraries.

Or indeed just because our customers want a 32 bit version of
our software so we have to be able to build and test it, though
we're on the verge of trying to drop most 32 bit support now.

Tom

On 07/06/18 10:50, Michal Schorm wrote:
Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or 
more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software on x86_64 OS?


 From what I googled, it look like everyone does it yet nobody explains 
why :D


--

Michal Schorm
Associate Software Engineer
Core Services - Databases Team
Red Hat

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Florian Weimer > wrote:


On 06/04/2018 06:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:

Thanks for the insight. Yes, I can see the advantages. However,
have things really gotten so bad that it justifies ejecting part
of the community?


The cost of i686 support is not insignificant.  Most of that happens
upstream (like features only getting accepted when there's an
i386/i686 implementation).  There's little we can do about that, but:

In fedora, we are also a point of contact for weird bugs which
someone needs to triage.  I really don't want to do that, but due to
the lack of secondary architectures, I'm often forced to because
i686 breakage brings development on architectures which I actually
care about to a halt.

I can justify this work if it helps downstream (so that we can be
confident that customers will be able to run their legacy software
going forward).  But with the current divergence in build flags, it
is fairly questionable whether my work can deliver such a benefit,
and that is frustrating.

Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html

List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines

List Archives:

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SJ57YLA5XHOYJAAZR3RZBSOPOR4KEO53/






___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FDDNDJI2ONZXFCSA7QQLOSFBBPO34GHZ/




--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QFRPSYOVWJS7IZ3PRXV2NYU6F5MVWA65/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jan Pazdziora]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 10:35:34AM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64 =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/i686_Is_For_x86-64
> 
> 
> Owner(s):
>   * Florian Weimer 
> 
> 
> Fedora builds its i686 packages for use on x86-64 systems as multi-lib RPMs.
> 
> 
> 
> == Detailed description ==
> Currently, the i686 RPM packages are built in such a way that they are
> compatible with very old i686 systems, such as the Pentium III.  The
> only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
> support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
> installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> multi-lib RPMs.  Furthermore, there are reports that the i686 kernel
> does not run stable on old hardware which is not x86-64-capable (
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/x...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/ZHV6I4IEO7GRYAZ4TUMO5VH2ZHLCNJZQ/
> ).
> This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
> packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
> x86-64 CPUs.
> 
> 
> == Scope ==
> * Proposal owners:
> Adjust the redhat-rpm-config, gcc, and glibc packages to switch to the
> new compiler flags. Except for mstackrealign, there is substantial
> experience with this configuration downstream.
> 
> * Other developers:
> Other developers can enable SSE2 optimization in their packages if
> they want, where this has been a compile-time option only.
> 
> * Release engineering:
> https://pagure.io/releng/issues/7543 #7543
> 
> ** List of deliverables: TBD
> 
> * Policies and guidelines:
> i686 is no longer a primary architecture. The Packaging Guidelines do
> not currently require support for non-SSE2 x86 systems, so no change
> is required there.

Could the title and nature of this proposed change be modified to

Dropping support for non-SSE2 x86 systems

rather than removing i686 from primary architectures and implying that
we no longer do i686-only distribution? Reading this thread, the
SSE2/non-SSE2 distinction is where the change is aiming anyway, isn't
it?

-- 
Jan Pazdziora
Senior Principal Software Engineer, Security Engineering, Red Hat
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5G4KWIBDQ25V6XLR4NIUXOST3D7B2SVH/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Michal Schorm]

Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software on x86_64 OS?

>From what I googled, it look like everyone does it yet nobody explains why
:D

--

Michal Schorm
Associate Software Engineer
Core Services - Databases Team
Red Hat

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Florian Weimer  wrote:

> On 06/04/2018 06:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
>
> Thanks for the insight. Yes, I can see the advantages. However, have
>> things really gotten so bad that it justifies ejecting part of the
>> community?
>>
>
> The cost of i686 support is not insignificant.  Most of that happens
> upstream (like features only getting accepted when there's an i386/i686
> implementation).  There's little we can do about that, but:
>
> In fedora, we are also a point of contact for weird bugs which someone
> needs to triage.  I really don't want to do that, but due to the lack of
> secondary architectures, I'm often forced to because i686 breakage brings
> development on architectures which I actually care about to a halt.
>
> I can justify this work if it helps downstream (so that we can be
> confident that customers will be able to run their legacy software going
> forward).  But with the current divergence in build flags, it is fairly
> questionable whether my work can deliver such a benefit, and that is
> frustrating.
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.or
> g/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SJ57YL
> A5XHOYJAAZR3RZBSOPOR4KEO53/
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FDDNDJI2ONZXFCSA7QQLOSFBBPO34GHZ/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Florian Weimer]

On 06/04/2018 06:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:

Thanks for the insight. Yes, I can see the advantages. However, have 
things really gotten so bad that it justifies ejecting part of the 
community?


The cost of i686 support is not insignificant.  Most of that happens 
upstream (like features only getting accepted when there's an i386/i686 
implementation).  There's little we can do about that, but:


In fedora, we are also a point of contact for weird bugs which someone 
needs to triage.  I really don't want to do that, but due to the lack of 
secondary architectures, I'm often forced to because i686 breakage 
brings development on architectures which I actually care about to a halt.


I can justify this work if it helps downstream (so that we can be 
confident that customers will be able to run their legacy software going 
forward).  But with the current divergence in build flags, it is fairly 
questionable whether my work can deliver such a benefit, and that is 
frustrating.


Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SJ57YLA5XHOYJAAZR3RZBSOPOR4KEO53/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Florian Weimer]

On 06/04/2018 03:59 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote:

On 06/04/2018 04:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
It should, because -march=x86-64 implies just SSE2 and FXSR, and Xeon 
MP supports both.  But the intent is what the subject says: i686 
binaries are for running legacy software on x86-64 systems, and 
nothing more.


So the 32-bit x86 SIG would be required to rebuild all of the userspace
packages to run on actual 32-bit hardware, right?


I don't think so, the binaries should still work on pure 32-bit 
hardware.  But I don't have lab full of 32-bit hardware which can 
actually install Fedora.  I have only proposed what I know I can support.


Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TGW2U6ZPHXC5J42KJLWOF5UAYJOJATNK/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Florian Weimer]

On 06/06/2018 06:38 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:

On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 10:35 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:


== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
Adjust the redhat-rpm-config, gcc, and glibc packages to switch to the
new compiler flags. Except for mstackrealign, there is substantial
experience with this configuration downstream.


Does this change include changing the kernel configuration for i686 to
a higher baseline, and if so, which?


No.  I have no insight into Fedora i686 kernel development, and find it 
rather odd (viz the removal of NX support).


Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/53NJQOS4POAP5UQPU2PKWVZ6GMHQENQM/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Adam Jackson]

On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 10:35 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:

> == Scope ==
> * Proposal owners:
> Adjust the redhat-rpm-config, gcc, and glibc packages to switch to the
> new compiler flags. Except for mstackrealign, there is substantial
> experience with this configuration downstream.

Does this change include changing the kernel configuration for i686 to
a higher baseline, and if so, which?

- ajax
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5RI7PCUNY4DP2S4YF434WL5CEOTDNTLC/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Michael Cullen]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, at 2:38 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> El mar, 05-06-2018 a las 15:59 -0400, Adam Jackson escribió:
> > On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 13:20 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> >
> > > as part of this change I suspect we would need to make kernel
> > > changes
> > > to stop building a i686 kernel, and all i686 deliverables would
> > > stop
> > > being made.
> >
> > We would?
> It may be a bad assumption on my part, I am assuming that
> optimising to> run on x86_64 means that we will not be able to run on any 
> actual
> x86_32 hardware.
>
> Dennis
> 

The optimisation proposed here wouldn’t technically prevent running on
P4 systems or the atoms that have been mentioned, as I understand it.
These systems would still benefit from a 32-bit kernel.
For reference, the last CPU I used that didn’t have SSE2 support was an
Athlon XP - introduced to compete with the P4 but actually had the
instruction set of a PIII more or less. I remember this because I tried
to run OpenSolaris on it. Which even about 15 years ago, required SSE2
How about instead of proposing to drop support for anything not using
x86-64 this was pushed as a proposal to stop supporting anything that
doesn’t do SSE2 (which seems to be the actual proposal) - does it sound
any different now?
To me, it does - because I’d suspect P4 and some Atom chips covers quite
a range of hardware that people still use.
Whether it’s worth running such a P4 machine nowadays is another
question of course, given how power hungry they are for not much
compute power...
To me? It’s perhaps worth dropping non-SSE2 support but i wouldn’t stop
building kernels for 32-bit
Michael
___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZZ65EEUBDU7YHBUYKQ2X5IYX7KSSTDID/>
>  Email had 1 attachment:
> + signature.asc
>   1k (application/pgp-signature)

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SS5IU7ORUY2IIFYZKPG7IG5JXGLEZYIM/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Dennis Gilmore]

El mar, 05-06-2018 a las 15:59 -0400, Adam Jackson escribió:
> On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 13:20 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> 
> > as part of this change I suspect we would need to make kernel
> > changes
> > to stop building a i686 kernel, and all i686 deliverables would
> > stop
> > being made.
> 
> We would?
It may be a bad assumption on my part, I am assuming that optimising to
run on x86_64 means that we will not be able to run on any actual
x86_32 hardware.

Dennis

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZZ65EEUBDU7YHBUYKQ2X5IYX7KSSTDID/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Stephen John Smoogen 
wrote:

> On 5 June 2018 at 12:49, Jeff Backus  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Miller <
> mat...@fedoraproject.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:50:34PM -0400, Jeff Backus wrote:
> >> > Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I
> realize
> >>
> >> Yeah, absolutely. And it's likely that those mirror numbers undercount,
> >> because not every system checks in daily, and then there's also NAT.
> >>
> >> But, my gut feeling is that about half of those are not using a current
> >> release _anyway_. Honest question: do you think that 12k would still
> >> count as a healthy number? I mean, it's not peanuts. But maybe it'd be
> >> better served by a Fedora remix (or similar) specifically targetting
> >> older and low-powered systems?
> >
> >
> > Good question. I think it would be more productive to think in
> percentages
> > instead of raw numbers, in this case. There are a lot of FOSS projects
> out
> > there that would love to have 12k users. :)
> >
> > Certainly, I would consider 10% a healthy number when talking about
> portion
> > of user base. I would even argue that 1% is still a healthy number,
> > particularly with regard to decisions that have a reasonable chance of
> > disenfranchising those affected. While I hate seeing people leave a
> > community, I wouldn't be able to defend 0.1%. So, somewhere in there is
> my
> > general boundary.
> >
> > Now cost changes all of that, of course. Obviously if 75% of our effort
> is
> > going to please 10%, then 10% isn't a healthy number.
> >
> > Clearly effort is going into enabling Fedora to work on non-SSE2 systems
> by
> > teams invested in the success of Fedora in general and not the success of
> > non-SSE2 systems in particular. I just don't know how to quantify it.
> >
> > Based on Smooge's awesome numbers, it looks like x86_32 is in the 2.3%
> > range. It would be interesting to see how this stacks up to AArch64 and
> > other secondary arches. Unfortunately, what complicates things is how
> x86_32
> > is so intertwined with x86_64.
> >
>
> It is also complicated in that most of the large sites using aarch64
> and arm32 do so in ways which make them uncountable. They will have
> 'thousands' of nodes but all of them use an internal mirror so we see
> them as only 1..
>

Good point. Does this affect x86_64, as well?


> The other issue is that the arm/aarch64 have active upstream help from
> people who are building the boards. There isn't any such support on
> the x86_32 side with the manufacturers getting to the point of saying
> "here is $20.00 and an ebay link.. buy at least a  pentium iv or v
> please. " The question that the x86 group needs to figure out is how
> many of the 3800 active systems are going to not have SSE2.
>

re: upstreams - Agreed. Clearly we are on borrowed time.

re: SSE2 - Agreed. We might be able to do some clever filtering with
Bugzilla to get an idea...


> > To your point re: a remix, that is an option we've discussed within the
> SIG
> > and is one we are open to exploring. A remix wouldn't resolve issues
> > introduced by enabling SSE2 by default, unless we maintained a parallel
> set
> > of packages e.g. i586 (which I've already been warned about. :) )
> >
> >>
> >> > that there are a lot of unknowns in the data, so it is difficult to
> draw
> >> > any hard conclusions, but 25k is still much larger than 0. Splitting
> >> > into
> >> > i686 into i586 and i686 would give more insight into who still needs
> >> > non-SSE2... Probably hurts my argument, though. :)
> >>
> >> Soo this is the kind of thing that more a detailed hardware
> >> census could really help us with!
> >
> >
> > Yes, I would agree :)
> >
>
> So it would probably be a lot more detailed than other sites are
> running. I looked at the popcorn data and they seem to count whether
> an OS is i386 or amd64 not if the CPU is pentium iii. Neither did any
> of the other OS census programs.
>

Thanks for looking. It's unfortunate, but not surprising.

-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/N5KOEDV5N5DA5B45UT3WIRCFTGNUODN4/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Adam Jackson]

On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 13:20 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:

> as part of this change I suspect we would need to make kernel changes
> to stop building a i686 kernel, and all i686 deliverables would stop
> being made.

We would?

- ajax
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/52TT3XLRTVUUHSGB7YPOM6RXXC2UTPNB/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Dennis Gilmore]

as part of this change I suspect we would need to make kernel changes
to stop building a i686 kernel, and all i686 deliverables would stop
being made. With the current tooling we would never be able to build 32
bit x86 containers, which is not something that is done today.  I would
also be curious what the plan is to test the 32 bit bits. they are
likely to get significantly less testing than the little they get
today.

Dennis

El lun, 04-06-2018 a las 10:35 +0200, Jan Kurik escribió:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64 =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/i686_Is_For_x86-64
> 
> 
> Owner(s):
>   * Florian Weimer 
> 
> 
> Fedora builds its i686 packages for use on x86-64 systems as multi-
> lib RPMs.
> 
> 
> 
> == Detailed description ==
> Currently, the i686 RPM packages are built in such a way that they
> are
> compatible with very old i686 systems, such as the Pentium III.  The
> only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
> support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
> installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> multi-lib RPMs.  Furthermore, there are reports that the i686 kernel
> does not run stable on old hardware which is not x86-64-capable (
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/x86@lists.fedoraproject
> .org/thread/ZHV6I4IEO7GRYAZ4TUMO5VH2ZHLCNJZQ/
> ).
> This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
> packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
> x86-64 CPUs.
> 
> 
> == Scope ==
> * Proposal owners:
> Adjust the redhat-rpm-config, gcc, and glibc packages to switch to
> the
> new compiler flags. Except for mstackrealign, there is substantial
> experience with this configuration downstream.
> 
> * Other developers:
> Other developers can enable SSE2 optimization in their packages if
> they want, where this has been a compile-time option only.
> 
> * Release engineering:
> https://pagure.io/releng/issues/7543 #7543
> 
> ** List of deliverables: TBD
> 
> * Policies and guidelines:
> i686 is no longer a primary architecture. The Packaging Guidelines do
> not currently require support for non-SSE2 x86 systems, so no change
> is required there.
> 
> * Trademark approval:
> N/A (not needed for this Change)
> -- 
> Jan Kuřík
> JBoss EAP Program Manager
> Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelin
> es
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@li
> sts.fedoraproject.org/message/CC22ZTFDB5L3BFSQG7M3TUZUVYKFUSKP/

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MXGUMNK7H4PEEOKPB72YNPN7OEX3IRCN/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:55 PM Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:
>
> On 5 June 2018 at 12:49, Jeff Backus  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Miller 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:50:34PM -0400, Jeff Backus wrote:
> >> > Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize
> >>
> >> Yeah, absolutely. And it's likely that those mirror numbers undercount,
> >> because not every system checks in daily, and then there's also NAT.
> >>
> >> But, my gut feeling is that about half of those are not using a current
> >> release _anyway_. Honest question: do you think that 12k would still
> >> count as a healthy number? I mean, it's not peanuts. But maybe it'd be
> >> better served by a Fedora remix (or similar) specifically targetting
> >> older and low-powered systems?
> >
> >
> > Good question. I think it would be more productive to think in percentages
> > instead of raw numbers, in this case. There are a lot of FOSS projects out
> > there that would love to have 12k users. :)
> >
> > Certainly, I would consider 10% a healthy number when talking about portion
> > of user base. I would even argue that 1% is still a healthy number,
> > particularly with regard to decisions that have a reasonable chance of
> > disenfranchising those affected. While I hate seeing people leave a
> > community, I wouldn't be able to defend 0.1%. So, somewhere in there is my
> > general boundary.
> >
> > Now cost changes all of that, of course. Obviously if 75% of our effort is
> > going to please 10%, then 10% isn't a healthy number.
> >
> > Clearly effort is going into enabling Fedora to work on non-SSE2 systems by
> > teams invested in the success of Fedora in general and not the success of
> > non-SSE2 systems in particular. I just don't know how to quantify it.
> >
> > Based on Smooge's awesome numbers, it looks like x86_32 is in the 2.3%
> > range. It would be interesting to see how this stacks up to AArch64 and
> > other secondary arches. Unfortunately, what complicates things is how x86_32
> > is so intertwined with x86_64.
> >
>
> It is also complicated in that most of the large sites using aarch64
> and arm32 do so in ways which make them uncountable. They will have
> 'thousands' of nodes but all of them use an internal mirror so we see
> them as only 1..
>
> The other issue is that the arm/aarch64 have active upstream help from
> people who are building the boards. There isn't any such support on
> the x86_32 side with the manufacturers getting to the point of saying
> "here is $20.00 and an ebay link.. buy at least a  pentium iv or v
> please. " The question that the x86 group needs to figure out is how
> many of the 3800 active systems are going to not have SSE2.
>
>
>
> > To your point re: a remix, that is an option we've discussed within the SIG
> > and is one we are open to exploring. A remix wouldn't resolve issues
> > introduced by enabling SSE2 by default, unless we maintained a parallel set
> > of packages e.g. i586 (which I've already been warned about. :) )
> >
> >>
> >> > that there are a lot of unknowns in the data, so it is difficult to draw
> >> > any hard conclusions, but 25k is still much larger than 0. Splitting
> >> > into
> >> > i686 into i586 and i686 would give more insight into who still needs
> >> > non-SSE2... Probably hurts my argument, though. :)
> >>
> >> Soo this is the kind of thing that more a detailed hardware
> >> census could really help us with!
> >
> >
> > Yes, I would agree :)
> >
>
> So it would probably be a lot more detailed than other sites are
> running. I looked at the popcorn data and they seem to count whether
> an OS is i386 or amd64 not if the CPU is pentium iii. Neither did any
> of the other OS census programs.

I think this is a red herring.  We have no concrete plans around an
improved hardware census and the goals of such a service aren't to
count how many 32-bit x86 installs we have anyway.  It's fine to
discuss this, but it should be done in a separate thread.  Likely from
the viewpoint of justifying an i586 effort by the x86 SIG.

It should not have any bearing on the proposed Change though.  With no
set timeframe for even having people to drive forward with the idea
for a hardware census tool, let alone software actually written to do
it, involving that in this discussion is kicking the can down the road
indefinitely.

josh
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3H5OAY7URJADVQL5DBQ7XMTVUIO2C7YI/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 5 June 2018 at 12:49, Jeff Backus  wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Miller 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:50:34PM -0400, Jeff Backus wrote:
>> > Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize
>>
>> Yeah, absolutely. And it's likely that those mirror numbers undercount,
>> because not every system checks in daily, and then there's also NAT.
>>
>> But, my gut feeling is that about half of those are not using a current
>> release _anyway_. Honest question: do you think that 12k would still
>> count as a healthy number? I mean, it's not peanuts. But maybe it'd be
>> better served by a Fedora remix (or similar) specifically targetting
>> older and low-powered systems?
>
>
> Good question. I think it would be more productive to think in percentages
> instead of raw numbers, in this case. There are a lot of FOSS projects out
> there that would love to have 12k users. :)
>
> Certainly, I would consider 10% a healthy number when talking about portion
> of user base. I would even argue that 1% is still a healthy number,
> particularly with regard to decisions that have a reasonable chance of
> disenfranchising those affected. While I hate seeing people leave a
> community, I wouldn't be able to defend 0.1%. So, somewhere in there is my
> general boundary.
>
> Now cost changes all of that, of course. Obviously if 75% of our effort is
> going to please 10%, then 10% isn't a healthy number.
>
> Clearly effort is going into enabling Fedora to work on non-SSE2 systems by
> teams invested in the success of Fedora in general and not the success of
> non-SSE2 systems in particular. I just don't know how to quantify it.
>
> Based on Smooge's awesome numbers, it looks like x86_32 is in the 2.3%
> range. It would be interesting to see how this stacks up to AArch64 and
> other secondary arches. Unfortunately, what complicates things is how x86_32
> is so intertwined with x86_64.
>

It is also complicated in that most of the large sites using aarch64
and arm32 do so in ways which make them uncountable. They will have
'thousands' of nodes but all of them use an internal mirror so we see
them as only 1..

The other issue is that the arm/aarch64 have active upstream help from
people who are building the boards. There isn't any such support on
the x86_32 side with the manufacturers getting to the point of saying
"here is $20.00 and an ebay link.. buy at least a  pentium iv or v
please. " The question that the x86 group needs to figure out is how
many of the 3800 active systems are going to not have SSE2.



> To your point re: a remix, that is an option we've discussed within the SIG
> and is one we are open to exploring. A remix wouldn't resolve issues
> introduced by enabling SSE2 by default, unless we maintained a parallel set
> of packages e.g. i586 (which I've already been warned about. :) )
>
>>
>> > that there are a lot of unknowns in the data, so it is difficult to draw
>> > any hard conclusions, but 25k is still much larger than 0. Splitting
>> > into
>> > i686 into i586 and i686 would give more insight into who still needs
>> > non-SSE2... Probably hurts my argument, though. :)
>>
>> Soo this is the kind of thing that more a detailed hardware
>> census could really help us with!
>
>
> Yes, I would agree :)
>

So it would probably be a lot more detailed than other sites are
running. I looked at the popcorn data and they seem to count whether
an OS is i386 or amd64 not if the CPU is pentium iii. Neither did any
of the other OS census programs.


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BI4EB53BMDKDDNJDPMBQ3ZTI2AVOGUCK/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Miller 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:50:34PM -0400, Jeff Backus wrote:
> > Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize
>
> Yeah, absolutely. And it's likely that those mirror numbers undercount,
> because not every system checks in daily, and then there's also NAT.
>
> But, my gut feeling is that about half of those are not using a current
> release _anyway_. Honest question: do you think that 12k would still
> count as a healthy number? I mean, it's not peanuts. But maybe it'd be
> better served by a Fedora remix (or similar) specifically targetting
> older and low-powered systems?
>

Good question. I think it would be more productive to think in percentages
instead of raw numbers, in this case. There are a lot of FOSS projects out
there that would love to have 12k users. :)

Certainly, I would consider 10% a healthy number when talking about portion
of user base. I would even argue that 1% is still a healthy number,
particularly with regard to decisions that have a reasonable chance of
disenfranchising those affected. While I hate seeing people leave a
community, I wouldn't be able to defend 0.1%. So, somewhere in there is my
general boundary.

Now cost changes all of that, of course. Obviously if 75% of our effort is
going to please 10%, then 10% isn't a healthy number.

Clearly effort is going into enabling Fedora to work on non-SSE2 systems by
teams invested in the success of Fedora in general and not the success of
non-SSE2 systems in particular. I just don't know how to quantify it.

Based on Smooge's awesome numbers, it looks like x86_32 is in the 2.3%
range. It would be interesting to see how this stacks up to AArch64 and
other secondary arches. Unfortunately, what complicates things is how
x86_32 is so intertwined with x86_64.

To your point re: a remix, that is an option we've discussed within the SIG
and is one we are open to exploring. A remix wouldn't resolve issues
introduced by enabling SSE2 by default, unless we maintained a parallel set
of packages e.g. i586 (which I've already been warned about. :) )


> > that there are a lot of unknowns in the data, so it is difficult to draw
> > any hard conclusions, but 25k is still much larger than 0. Splitting into
> > i686 into i586 and i686 would give more insight into who still needs
> > non-SSE2... Probably hurts my argument, though. :)
>
> Soo this is the kind of thing that more a detailed hardware
> census could really help us with!
>

Yes, I would agree :)


-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RREBM5JKGKSSO5MDLVKXTHNZSWNTMDZP/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 10:07:55PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> But, my gut feeling is that about half of those are not using a current
> release _anyway_. Honest question: do you think that 12k would still
> count as a healthy number? I mean, it's not peanuts. But maybe it'd be

Ooh, I should read whole threads before replying. (Thanks, Smooge!)
Looks like it's more like 4k than 12k.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZH46J4PP2NRWQCA47N3D4YCYUQ4YKUAT/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:50:34PM -0400, Jeff Backus wrote:
> Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize

Yeah, absolutely. And it's likely that those mirror numbers undercount,
because not every system checks in daily, and then there's also NAT.

But, my gut feeling is that about half of those are not using a current
release _anyway_. Honest question: do you think that 12k would still
count as a healthy number? I mean, it's not peanuts. But maybe it'd be
better served by a Fedora remix (or similar) specifically targetting
older and low-powered systems?

> that there are a lot of unknowns in the data, so it is difficult to draw
> any hard conclusions, but 25k is still much larger than 0. Splitting into
> i686 into i586 and i686 would give more insight into who still needs
> non-SSE2... Probably hurts my argument, though. :)

Soo this is the kind of thing that more a detailed hardware
census could really help us with!


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TDDINBL32E2UCMD2QDVLGDFZOODH55YD/

Re: [X86] Re: Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Justin Forbes]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Jeff Backus  wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen 
> wrote:
>>
>> On 4 June 2018 at 14:18, Matthew Miller  wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:01:13PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> >> > >>support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
>> >> > >>installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
>> >> > >>multi-lib RPMs.
>> >> > >Based on what data?
>> >> > The mirror data I've seen, but it's really outdated at this point.
>> >> There are currently about 275,000 IP address checking in with x86_64
>> >> systems every day. and 25,000 x86_32. So it's about 11:1.
>> >
>> > Here's a breakdown as arch percentage over time:
>> >
>> > https://twitter.com/mattdm/status/1003701941724172295
>> >
>> > Looks like the 50:50 point was about five years ago.
>> >
>>
>> For F26,F27,F28 for the first 150 days of the year:
>>
>> Days:  150
>> X86_32: 3769.4 avg/day
>> X86_64: 159540 avg/day
>> Ratio (32/64) 0.0236267 (1:42)
>>
>> The reason is that the majority of i386 users are not moving off of
>> dead/old releases. For the month of May
>>
>> Avg/day release
>> 28623.7 epel6
>> 16009.2 epel5
>> 4043.37 f25
>> 3318.53 f20
>> 2759.2 f08
>> 2127.8 f23
>> 1589.63 f27
>> 1401.7 f22
>> 1371 f26
>> 1277.53 f21
>> 1056.33 f28
>> 874.2 f24
>> 733.8 f14
>> 562.533 f19
>> 509.067 f11
>>
>> In comparison, x86_64 is mostly living on the latest release:
>> [smooge@data-analysis01 mirrors]$ grep '^2018-05-.* x86_64' out-2018
>> | awk '{print $3}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -bnr | head -n 15 | awk
>> '{print $1/30, $2}'
>> 671455 epel7
>> 605436 epel6
>> 87367.4 f27
>> 60159.7 f28
>> 37857.6 epel5
>> 34421.4 f26
>> 27011 f25
>> 19115.4 f23
>> 14292.2 f24
>> 8627.47 f22
>> 6603.3 f20
>> 5863.47 f21
>> 1413.37 modular_f28
>> 1091.87 f19
>> 868.833 f18
>>
>> The 30 is because only 30 days of May have been analyzed. [And yes
>> there are still many Fedora 08 systems showing up for x86_32]
>>
>> Personally I think the number of those systems which are running
>> Pentium III hardware with the latest OS are probably already on this
>> mailing list.. I expect that they would also be looking at only
>> needing to support a small subset of the software since running
>> GNOME/KDE with usually 128->512 MB of RAM is not possible. It also
>> would probably want a very stripped down installer since anaconda is
>> aimed at 'current' hardware... probably something like the images that
>> ARM-32 makes.
>
>
> Very good point!
>
> And wow! Fedora 08 was quite some time ago... :)


It was, and it was used as a long time as a base image for VMs
somewhere, which is probably where a lot of those numbers are coming
from. It would be really interesting if we could see a breakdown of VM
vs raw metal, as I am guessing a whole lot of the i686 is VM traffic.
I know I have at least 4 of those VMs per release checking in just for
kernel testing bits.  For a long time there was also a trend of people
running 32bit guests wherever they could to reduce memory footprint.

>
> --
> Jeff Backus
> jeff.bac...@gmail.com
> http://github.com/jsbackus
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DZW44V5B32MCO7AKTBSMT3HMTKRQRKTF/
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/AZA7QEFYYV5X4PJNR3JPQIRAEOBZYHXU/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Rex Dieter  wrote:

> Jeff Backus wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Rex Dieter  wrote:
> >
> >> Jeff Backus wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on
> >> > community resources, I'd push back on a change that actively excludes
> >> part
> >> > of the community. Now, if we do have data indicating that supporting
> >> > non-SSE2 systems with the i686 architecture is a not-insignificant
> >> > burden on the community, then I ask that this proposal be updated to
> >> > include a solution that allows us to not push out part of the
> >> > community, e.g.
> >> Ajax's
> >> > i586 suggestion.
> >>
> >> Fwiw, Qt5 officially doesn't support non-sse2 systems either.  kde-sig
> >> has had to carry patches/hacks to make it work (or at least be
> >> buildable), but I'd love to be able to not have to do that anymore.
> >>
> >>
> > Hmm.. Yes, we've had discussions within the SIG re: window managers that
> > support i586/i686, and KDE was on the list of WMs that no longer support
> > our target system. Do these patches/hacks only apply to KDE or do they
> > apply to Qt in general?
>
> I'm speaking about Qt5 here
>
>
I was afraid of that. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to you
and the rest of the KDE-SIG for all of the effort you folks make. :)

-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YSZSH3Y4TOKKED3Z5R4HOFM6VOBCC2VV/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Rex Dieter]

Jeff Backus wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Rex Dieter  wrote:
> 
>> Jeff Backus wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on
>> > community resources, I'd push back on a change that actively excludes
>> part
>> > of the community. Now, if we do have data indicating that supporting
>> > non-SSE2 systems with the i686 architecture is a not-insignificant
>> > burden on the community, then I ask that this proposal be updated to
>> > include a solution that allows us to not push out part of the
>> > community, e.g.
>> Ajax's
>> > i586 suggestion.
>>
>> Fwiw, Qt5 officially doesn't support non-sse2 systems either.  kde-sig
>> has had to carry patches/hacks to make it work (or at least be
>> buildable), but I'd love to be able to not have to do that anymore.
>>
>>
> Hmm.. Yes, we've had discussions within the SIG re: window managers that
> support i586/i686, and KDE was on the list of WMs that no longer support
> our target system. Do these patches/hacks only apply to KDE or do they
> apply to Qt in general?

I'm speaking about Qt5 here

-- Rex

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3MCCFNKJR624URBSLXWESH5S4J35VEDK/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Michael Cronenworth  wrote:

> On 06/04/2018 02:50 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize
>> that there are a lot of unknowns in the data, so it is difficult to draw
>> any hard conclusions, but 25k is still much larger than 0. Splitting into
>> i686 into i586 and i686 would give more insight into who still needs
>> non-SSE2... Probably hurts my argument, though. :)
>>
>>
> Jeff,
>
> If you want to do the work involved to split up the 32-bit arches please
> do it.
>
> The discussion going on here is not a democratic vote on if non-x86_64
> CPUs are supported. :)
>
>
Fair point. :)

-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WNMZXU23ME5KYXO4B77HLKSLUJUEBIBL/

Re: [X86] Re: Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen 
wrote:

> On 4 June 2018 at 14:18, Matthew Miller  wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:01:13PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >> > >>support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
> >> > >>installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> >> > >>multi-lib RPMs.
> >> > >Based on what data?
> >> > The mirror data I've seen, but it's really outdated at this point.
> >> There are currently about 275,000 IP address checking in with x86_64
> >> systems every day. and 25,000 x86_32. So it's about 11:1.
> >
> > Here's a breakdown as arch percentage over time:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/mattdm/status/1003701941724172295
> >
> > Looks like the 50:50 point was about five years ago.
> >
>
> For F26,F27,F28 for the first 150 days of the year:
>
> Days:  150
> X86_32: 3769.4 avg/day
> X86_64: 159540 avg/day
> Ratio (32/64) 0.0236267 (1:42)
>
> The reason is that the majority of i386 users are not moving off of
> dead/old releases. For the month of May
>
> Avg/day release
> 28623.7 epel6
> 16009.2 epel5
> 4043.37 f25
> 3318.53 f20
> 2759.2 f08
> 2127.8 f23
> 1589.63 f27
> 1401.7 f22
> 1371 f26
> 1277.53 f21
> 1056.33 f28
> 874.2 f24
> 733.8 f14
> 562.533 f19
> 509.067 f11
>
> In comparison, x86_64 is mostly living on the latest release:
> [smooge@data-analysis01 mirrors]$ grep '^2018-05-.* x86_64' out-2018
> | awk '{print $3}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -bnr | head -n 15 | awk
> '{print $1/30, $2}'
> 671455 epel7
> 605436 epel6
> 87367.4 f27
> 60159.7 f28
> 37857.6 epel5
> 34421.4 f26
> 27011 f25
> 19115.4 f23
> 14292.2 f24
> 8627.47 f22
> 6603.3 f20
> 5863.47 f21
> 1413.37 modular_f28
> 1091.87 f19
> 868.833 f18
>
> The 30 is because only 30 days of May have been analyzed. [And yes
> there are still many Fedora 08 systems showing up for x86_32]
>
> Personally I think the number of those systems which are running
> Pentium III hardware with the latest OS are probably already on this
> mailing list.. I expect that they would also be looking at only
> needing to support a small subset of the software since running
> GNOME/KDE with usually 128->512 MB of RAM is not possible. It also
> would probably want a very stripped down installer since anaconda is
> aimed at 'current' hardware... probably something like the images that
> ARM-32 makes.
>

Very good point!

And wow! Fedora 08 was quite some time ago... :)

-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DZW44V5B32MCO7AKTBSMT3HMTKRQRKTF/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Michael Cronenworth]

On 06/04/2018 02:50 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize that there 
are a lot of unknowns in the data, so it is difficult to draw any hard 
conclusions, but 25k is still much larger than 0. Splitting into i686 into i586 
and i686 would give more insight into who still needs non-SSE2... Probably hurts 
my argument, though. :)




Jeff,

If you want to do the work involved to split up the 32-bit arches please do it.

The discussion going on here is not a democratic vote on if non-x86_64 CPUs are 
supported. :)


Thanks,
Michael
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KKS3QTVPVGWGE4QG2YI7ES2J5P3GSKBG/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Matthew Miller 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:01:13PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > >>support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
> > > >>installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> > > >>multi-lib RPMs.
> > > >Based on what data?
> > > The mirror data I've seen, but it's really outdated at this point.
> > There are currently about 275,000 IP address checking in with x86_64
> > systems every day. and 25,000 x86_32. So it's about 11:1.
>
> Here's a breakdown as arch percentage over time:
>
> https://twitter.com/mattdm/status/1003701941724172295
>
> Looks like the 50:50 point was about five years ago.
>

Thanks! Very helpful to see x86_32 compared to ARM. Trajectory is very
important, but laying that aside, x86_32 a) significantly larger than both
ARM arches combined, and b) roughly 10% of the "user base".

jeff

-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/U5NQTR3ILSAD4XCQJ2N2O33FZFYYHK2U/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 4 June 2018 at 14:18, Matthew Miller  wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:01:13PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> > >>support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
>> > >>installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
>> > >>multi-lib RPMs.
>> > >Based on what data?
>> > The mirror data I've seen, but it's really outdated at this point.
>> There are currently about 275,000 IP address checking in with x86_64
>> systems every day. and 25,000 x86_32. So it's about 11:1.
>
> Here's a breakdown as arch percentage over time:
>
> https://twitter.com/mattdm/status/1003701941724172295
>
> Looks like the 50:50 point was about five years ago.
>

For F26,F27,F28 for the first 150 days of the year:

Days:  150
X86_32: 3769.4 avg/day
X86_64: 159540 avg/day
Ratio (32/64) 0.0236267 (1:42)

The reason is that the majority of i386 users are not moving off of
dead/old releases. For the month of May

Avg/day release
28623.7 epel6
16009.2 epel5
4043.37 f25
3318.53 f20
2759.2 f08
2127.8 f23
1589.63 f27
1401.7 f22
1371 f26
1277.53 f21
1056.33 f28
874.2 f24
733.8 f14
562.533 f19
509.067 f11

In comparison, x86_64 is mostly living on the latest release:
[smooge@data-analysis01 mirrors]$ grep '^2018-05-.* x86_64' out-2018
| awk '{print $3}' | sort | uniq -c | sort -bnr | head -n 15 | awk
'{print $1/30, $2}'
671455 epel7
605436 epel6
87367.4 f27
60159.7 f28
37857.6 epel5
34421.4 f26
27011 f25
19115.4 f23
14292.2 f24
8627.47 f22
6603.3 f20
5863.47 f21
1413.37 modular_f28
1091.87 f19
868.833 f18

The 30 is because only 30 days of May have been analyzed. [And yes
there are still many Fedora 08 systems showing up for x86_32]

Personally I think the number of those systems which are running
Pentium III hardware with the latest OS are probably already on this
mailing list.. I expect that they would also be looking at only
needing to support a small subset of the software since running
GNOME/KDE with usually 128->512 MB of RAM is not possible. It also
would probably want a very stripped down installer since anaconda is
aimed at 'current' hardware... probably something like the images that
ARM-32 makes.



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CKOZSPOK63LLQK5MOVV6J4JX4COYI7XK/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Matthew Miller 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 04:04:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >>only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
> > >>support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
> > >>installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> > >>multi-lib RPMs.
> > >Based on what data?
> > The mirror data I've seen, but it's really outdated at this point.
>
> There are currently about 275,000 IP address checking in with x86_64
> systems every day. and 25,000 x86_32. So it's about 11:1.
>
> However, that includes systems going back to FC6; if we looked at just
> recent releases it'd be even more tilted. (I don't have a quick way to
> break that out at my fingertips, but could ask for it if it's really
> helpful.)
>

Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize
that there are a lot of unknowns in the data, so it is difficult to draw
any hard conclusions, but 25k is still much larger than 0. Splitting into
i686 into i586 and i686 would give more insight into who still needs
non-SSE2... Probably hurts my argument, though. :)

jeff

-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VRNHT4KNFXRAQ6CTN6NCD6OZLXE45XR6/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Rex Dieter  wrote:

> Jeff Backus wrote:
>
>
> > Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on
> > community resources, I'd push back on a change that actively excludes
> part
> > of the community. Now, if we do have data indicating that supporting
> > non-SSE2 systems with the i686 architecture is a not-insignificant burden
> > on the community, then I ask that this proposal be updated to include a
> > solution that allows us to not push out part of the community, e.g.
> Ajax's
> > i586 suggestion.
>
> Fwiw, Qt5 officially doesn't support non-sse2 systems either.  kde-sig has
> had to carry patches/hacks to make it work (or at least be buildable), but
> I'd love to be able to not have to do that anymore.
>
>
Hmm.. Yes, we've had discussions within the SIG re: window managers that
support i586/i686, and KDE was on the list of WMs that no longer support
our target system. Do these patches/hacks only apply to KDE or do they
apply to Qt in general?

jeff

-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OROU4NJTSJELPTGQ4GNUTTCZGFNFVB4I/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Josh Boyer 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:55 PM Jeff Backus  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Florian Weimer 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 06/04/2018 05:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Would you please provide more detail on what problem or problems we
> are trying to solve? Is this purely for efficiency reasons?
> >>
> >>
> >> Mainly developer efficiency.  There will be fewer test suite problems
> due to excess precision (a bunch of packages carry patches which introduce
> -ffloat-store on i686 to work around them).  Packagers will not have to
> figure out a way how to build for compatibility with non-SSE2 systems
> (which some upstreams do not support anymore).
> >>
> >> Furthermore, the divergence from downstream is troubling to Red Hatters
> for various reasons.  (Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 already underwent a
> similar change.)
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the insight. Yes, I can see the advantages. However, have
> things really gotten so bad that it justifies ejecting part of the
> community? Yes, a minor part of the community, but a part of the community
> none the less. As you mentioned, the excess precision issue has a known
> work around. And for packages where upstream does not support non-SSE2,
> packagers can raise a flag with the x86 SIG. If there isn't enough interest
> or bandwidth to add support for non-SSE2 systems, then I think it is
> perfectly reasonable to add a note in the package description and move on.
> I believe packages such as Dark Table already do this?
>
> You're describing the status quo today.
>

Yes, I am arguing in favor of the status quo.


>
> > Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on
> community resources, I'd push back on a change that actively excludes part
> of the community. Now, if we do have data indicating that supporting
> non-SSE2 systems with the i686 architecture is a not-insignificant burden
> on the community, then I ask that this proposal be updated to include a
> solution that allows us to not push out part of the community, e.g. Ajax's
> i586 suggestion.
>
> How about data that indicates it's less performant for other usecase
> applications?  There are a number of situations where 32-bit binaries
> would possibly be preferable, such as limited memory VMs, etc.
> However, because the tuning is aimed at hardware that is so old, the
> performance is worse.  Or if we're looking at multi-lib situations,
> what if a 32-bit application that requires a 32-bit library happens to
> be built with SSE2 enabled?  The application can benefit from the
> hardware, but the libraries the OS provides cannot.  That is an odd
> mix.
>

I agree that this is a valid use case. The i586 arch would be reasonable
compromise, depending on the amount of effort required to split i686.


>
> At some point in time, a determination needs to be made on when to
> move on and take advantage of advances in computing hardware.
> Continuing to not leverage newer 32-bit hardware seems folly.
>

Agreed. I'm just arguing for choosing a path that excludes as few users as
possible.


>
> > Not trying to be quarrelsome. I understand the desire to focus efforts,
> however, I hope we can also appreciate the concerns of those of us with
> currently supported hardware that would be affected by this proposal.
>
> We should really stop using the word "support" here.  It implies that
> an entity, the Fedora project in this case, is responsible for keeping
> it working or treating it as a regression if it does not work.  That
> is not an accurate description of the situation.  We should talk about
> i686 hardware as community maintained, which implies the onus is on
> those that want it to work to get it to work.  One could say "but
> Fedora is a community project" and they'd be completely correct but
> "support" has too much baggage to use with Fedora in general.
>
>
Good point, and, yes, I should have used a more precise term. Secondary
arches definitely fall under the purview of 'community maintained'. I stand
corrected.

jeff


-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/2ZHT6DR7O4VXMJB55I7M64KYLVHCYY4W/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:01:13PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > >>support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
> > >>installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> > >>multi-lib RPMs.
> > >Based on what data?
> > The mirror data I've seen, but it's really outdated at this point.
> There are currently about 275,000 IP address checking in with x86_64
> systems every day. and 25,000 x86_32. So it's about 11:1.

Here's a breakdown as arch percentage over time:

https://twitter.com/mattdm/status/1003701941724172295

Looks like the 50:50 point was about five years ago.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UQFO6ET7IHYYXJIMF2CCYR3OKEBTGK4Q/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 04:04:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
> >>support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
> >>installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> >>multi-lib RPMs.
> >Based on what data?
> The mirror data I've seen, but it's really outdated at this point.

There are currently about 275,000 IP address checking in with x86_64
systems every day. and 25,000 x86_32. So it's about 11:1.

However, that includes systems going back to FC6; if we looked at just
recent releases it'd be even more tilted. (I don't have a quick way to
break that out at my fingertips, but could ask for it if it's really
helpful.)

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IAO2TJVPNUNEZF33CTQUKNDKSAT35WZI/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:55 PM Jeff Backus  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Florian Weimer  wrote:
>>
>> On 06/04/2018 05:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
>>>
>>> Would you please provide more detail on what problem or problems we are 
>>> trying to solve? Is this purely for efficiency reasons?
>>
>>
>> Mainly developer efficiency.  There will be fewer test suite problems due to 
>> excess precision (a bunch of packages carry patches which introduce 
>> -ffloat-store on i686 to work around them).  Packagers will not have to 
>> figure out a way how to build for compatibility with non-SSE2 systems (which 
>> some upstreams do not support anymore).
>>
>> Furthermore, the divergence from downstream is troubling to Red Hatters for 
>> various reasons.  (Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 already underwent a similar 
>> change.)
>>
>
> Thanks for the insight. Yes, I can see the advantages. However, have things 
> really gotten so bad that it justifies ejecting part of the community? Yes, a 
> minor part of the community, but a part of the community none the less. As 
> you mentioned, the excess precision issue has a known work around. And for 
> packages where upstream does not support non-SSE2, packagers can raise a flag 
> with the x86 SIG. If there isn't enough interest or bandwidth to add support 
> for non-SSE2 systems, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to add a note 
> in the package description and move on. I believe packages such as Dark Table 
> already do this?

You're describing the status quo today.

> Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on 
> community resources, I'd push back on a change that actively excludes part of 
> the community. Now, if we do have data indicating that supporting non-SSE2 
> systems with the i686 architecture is a not-insignificant burden on the 
> community, then I ask that this proposal be updated to include a solution 
> that allows us to not push out part of the community, e.g. Ajax's i586 
> suggestion.

How about data that indicates it's less performant for other usecase
applications?  There are a number of situations where 32-bit binaries
would possibly be preferable, such as limited memory VMs, etc.
However, because the tuning is aimed at hardware that is so old, the
performance is worse.  Or if we're looking at multi-lib situations,
what if a 32-bit application that requires a 32-bit library happens to
be built with SSE2 enabled?  The application can benefit from the
hardware, but the libraries the OS provides cannot.  That is an odd
mix.

At some point in time, a determination needs to be made on when to
move on and take advantage of advances in computing hardware.
Continuing to not leverage newer 32-bit hardware seems folly.

> Not trying to be quarrelsome. I understand the desire to focus efforts, 
> however, I hope we can also appreciate the concerns of those of us with 
> currently supported hardware that would be affected by this proposal.

We should really stop using the word "support" here.  It implies that
an entity, the Fedora project in this case, is responsible for keeping
it working or treating it as a regression if it does not work.  That
is not an accurate description of the situation.  We should talk about
i686 hardware as community maintained, which implies the onus is on
those that want it to work to get it to work.  One could say "but
Fedora is a community project" and they'd be completely correct but
"support" has too much baggage to use with Fedora in general.

josh
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WXCZSJGNHTGNASALYGZSD2CDCUZH3SRD/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Rex Dieter]

Jeff Backus wrote:


> Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on
> community resources, I'd push back on a change that actively excludes part
> of the community. Now, if we do have data indicating that supporting
> non-SSE2 systems with the i686 architecture is a not-insignificant burden
> on the community, then I ask that this proposal be updated to include a
> solution that allows us to not push out part of the community, e.g. Ajax's
> i586 suggestion.

Fwiw, Qt5 officially doesn't support non-sse2 systems either.  kde-sig has 
had to carry patches/hacks to make it work (or at least be buildable), but 
I'd love to be able to not have to do that anymore.

-- Rex
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZLCNHV7UX5HKAIRW763U5ECPW6AKEH3E/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Florian Weimer  wrote:

> On 06/04/2018 05:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
>
>> Would you please provide more detail on what problem or problems we are
>> trying to solve? Is this purely for efficiency reasons?
>>
>
> Mainly developer efficiency.  There will be fewer test suite problems due
> to excess precision (a bunch of packages carry patches which introduce
> -ffloat-store on i686 to work around them).  Packagers will not have to
> figure out a way how to build for compatibility with non-SSE2 systems
> (which some upstreams do not support anymore).
>
> Furthermore, the divergence from downstream is troubling to Red Hatters
> for various reasons.  (Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 already underwent a
> similar change.)
>
>
Thanks for the insight. Yes, I can see the advantages. However, have things
really gotten so bad that it justifies ejecting part of the community? Yes,
a minor part of the community, but a part of the community none the less.
As you mentioned, the excess precision issue has a known work around. And
for packages where upstream does not support non-SSE2, packagers can raise
a flag with the x86 SIG. If there isn't enough interest or bandwidth to add
support for non-SSE2 systems, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to
add a note in the package description and move on. I believe packages such
as Dark Table already do this?

Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on
community resources, I'd push back on a change that actively excludes part
of the community. Now, if we do have data indicating that supporting
non-SSE2 systems with the i686 architecture is a not-insignificant burden
on the community, then I ask that this proposal be updated to include a
solution that allows us to not push out part of the community, e.g. Ajax's
i586 suggestion.

Not trying to be quarrelsome. I understand the desire to focus efforts,
however, I hope we can also appreciate the concerns of those of us with
currently supported hardware that would be affected by this proposal.

jeff

-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3K3SWOKJHZNRIVYN2WWASDSLVBZLQCBJ/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Emmanuel Seyman]

* Chris Adams [04/06/2018 10:58] :
>
> I think you are missing a some of The Atom chips that are 32-bit only;
> there are versions that were released as late as 2010 that don't support
> 64-bit (I don't know when they were discontinued).

You're thinking of the Lincroft series of Intel CPUs:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Atom/Intel-Atom%20Z650%20AY80609007296AA.html
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Atom/Intel-Atom%20Z670%20AY80609007293AA.html

They were introduced in 2011 and EOL-ed in 2013.

Emmanuel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WMM6HM4V6FYBNMZ5BYLJWZLFWLAKO4EP/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Florian Weimer]

On 06/04/2018 05:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
Would you please provide more detail on what problem or problems we are 
trying to solve? Is this purely for efficiency reasons?


Mainly developer efficiency.  There will be fewer test suite problems 
due to excess precision (a bunch of packages carry patches which 
introduce -ffloat-store on i686 to work around them).  Packagers will 
not have to figure out a way how to build for compatibility with 
non-SSE2 systems (which some upstreams do not support anymore).


Furthermore, the divergence from downstream is troubling to Red Hatters 
for various reasons.  (Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 already underwent a 
similar change.)


Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/PN7J74LU7EOCY5UYPT4UTNSZCN2NWL2S/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Adam Jackson  wrote:

> On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 17:21 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 06/04/2018 05:07 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 16:04 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
> > > > > > packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
> > > > > > x86-64 CPUs.
> > > > >
> > > > > On which x86 CPU families will Fedora continue to work?
> > > >
> > > > Based on this proposed change, you will need an x86-64-capable CPU.
> > >
> > > That's not how I read the proposal. No reason a P4 shouldn't work if
> > > all you're requiring is SSE2+FXSR, right?
> >
> > It will probably work, but it's more of a happy accident than a
> > deliberate decision.  I would still suggest it if it were incompatible
> > with Pentium 4 CPUs without x86-64 support.  (The fewer of these
> > Netburst power guzzlers are running, the better, to be honest.)
>
> Certainly, I'm no netburst fan either. But the last[*] 32-bit-only
> Intel chip was Yonah (Core 1), which went out of production in 2008-
> ish, so there's about seven years worth of CPUs between the
> introductions of SSE2 and AMD64. So this isn't eliminating the
> possibility of extant i686 kernels, which "will need an x86-64-capable
> CPU" might otherwise imply.
>

Yeah, I have a handful of i686 hardware newer than 2001 that runs pretty
well.

jeff

-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MFVSHYVEJA4KWCHFUTBGIYKD2LFG2KI4/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Adam Jackson  wrote:

> On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 08:59 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> > On 06/04/2018 04:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > It should, because -march=x86-64 implies just SSE2 and FXSR, and Xeon
> MP
> > > supports both.  But the intent is what the subject says: i686 binaries
> > > are for running legacy software on x86-64 systems, and nothing more.
> >
> > So the 32-bit x86 SIG would be required to rebuild all of the userspace
> > packages to run on actual 32-bit hardware, right?  (What would those be
> > called, since i686 is taken?)
>
> No. The 32-bit ABI level being targeted here is basically the Pentium
> 4, which was a 32-bit part. On a P3 or older, yes, you'd need a
> rebuild, but the P4 was 2001 so we're talking about hardware old enough
> to vote here.
>
> If we did want to allow for pre-P4 32-bit userspace, what I'd probably
> do is (mostly) change %_libdir to /usr/lib/sse2 for i686, and leave it
> as /usr/lib for a (reintroduced) i586 architecture.
>

If there is truly a pressing need to enable SSE2 for *all* i686 binaries,
I'd support this as a compromise.

jeff

-- 
Jeff Backus
jeff.bac...@gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/Q7ZN5JPBX44TSYF5KBUY2656BQ5PRFQE/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Adam Jackson  said:
> Certainly, I'm no netburst fan either. But the last[*] 32-bit-only
> Intel chip was Yonah (Core 1), which went out of production in 2008-
> ish, so there's about seven years worth of CPUs between the
> introductions of SSE2 and AMD64.

I think you are missing a some of The Atom chips that are 32-bit only;
there are versions that were released as late as 2010 that don't support
64-bit (I don't know when they were discontinued).  Whether that's a
target for Fedora i686, I don't know.

-- 
Chris Adams 
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LWHYMRNOWRTFDJ5YPPYFV6EF7FPARIDB/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jeff Backus]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Florian Weimer  wrote:

> = Proposed System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64 =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/i686_Is_For_x86-64
>
>
> Owner(s):
>   * Florian Weimer 
>
>
> Fedora builds its i686 packages for use on x86-64 systems as multi-lib
> RPMs.
>
>
>
> == Detailed description ==
> Currently, the i686 RPM packages are built in such a way that they are
> compatible with very old i686 systems, such as the Pentium III.  The
> only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
> support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
> installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> multi-lib RPMs.  Furthermore, there are reports that the i686 kernel
> does not run stable on old hardware which is not x86-64-capable (
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/x...@lists.fedo
> raproject.org/thread/ZHV6I4IEO7GRYAZ4TUMO5VH2ZHLCNJZQ/
> ).
> This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
> packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
> x86-64 CPUs.
>

Would you please provide more detail on what problem or problems we are
trying to solve? Is this purely for efficiency reasons?

jeff
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MMJYA7KVFJ3UEYMVFQL3OFQLI7R27Z54/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Adam Jackson]

On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 17:21 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/04/2018 05:07 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 16:04 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > 
> > > > > This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
> > > > > packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
> > > > > x86-64 CPUs.
> > > > 
> > > > On which x86 CPU families will Fedora continue to work?
> > > 
> > > Based on this proposed change, you will need an x86-64-capable CPU.
> > 
> > That's not how I read the proposal. No reason a P4 shouldn't work if
> > all you're requiring is SSE2+FXSR, right?
> 
> It will probably work, but it's more of a happy accident than a 
> deliberate decision.  I would still suggest it if it were incompatible 
> with Pentium 4 CPUs without x86-64 support.  (The fewer of these 
> Netburst power guzzlers are running, the better, to be honest.)

Certainly, I'm no netburst fan either. But the last[*] 32-bit-only
Intel chip was Yonah (Core 1), which went out of production in 2008-
ish, so there's about seven years worth of CPUs between the
introductions of SSE2 and AMD64. So this isn't eliminating the
possibility of extant i686 kernels, which "will need an x86-64-capable
CPU" might otherwise imply.

[*] - Ignoring Quark, as the rest of the market did.

- ajax
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TGAZS4TK3F5XW4PIRXCJCLMQYVC4HCZP/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Al Dunsmuir]

On Monday, June 4, 2018, 4:35:34 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64 =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/i686_Is_For_x86-64

> Owner(s):
>   * Florian Weimer 

> Fedora builds its i686 packages for use on x86-64 systems as multi-lib RPMs.

> == Detailed description ==
> Currently, the i686 RPM packages are built in such a way that they are
> compatible with very old i686 systems, such as the Pentium III.  The
> only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
> support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
> installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> multi-lib RPMs.  Furthermore, there are reports that the i686 kernel
> does not run stable on old hardware which is not x86-64-capable (
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/x...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/ZHV6I4IEO7GRYAZ4TUMO5VH2ZHLCNJZQ/
> ).
> This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
> packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
> x86-64 CPUs.


> == Scope ==
> * Proposal owners:
> Adjust the redhat-rpm-config, gcc, and glibc packages to switch to the
> new compiler flags. Except for mstackrealign, there is substantial
> experience with this configuration downstream.

> * Other developers:
> Other developers can enable SSE2 optimization in their packages if
> they want, where this has been a compile-time option only.

> * Release engineering:
> https://pagure.io/releng/issues/7543 #7543

> ** List of deliverables: TBD

> * Policies and guidelines:
> i686 is no longer a primary architecture. The Packaging Guidelines do
> not currently require support for non-SSE2 x86 systems, so no change
> is required there.

I think this change is fundamentally wrong.

If  you  have  the 64-bit capable hardware, should not the focus be on
the  X84-64  modules?   The 32-bit modules are targeted to an entirely
different audience, who have already decided to take a performance hit
by running in 32-bit mode.

Requiring  64-bit  hardware  to run the 32-bit modules does not simply
impact the i686 secondary architecture - it fundamentally breaks it.

I  don't see this change as being reasonable unless the i686 secondary
arch is going to get a full parallel build to support i686 hardware. I
don't see that happening either.

Al
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/X5MHFHEHQISB2YJBENM6JB3UUDPRJBSM/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Florian Weimer]

On 06/04/2018 05:07 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:

On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 16:04 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:


This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
x86-64 CPUs.


On which x86 CPU families will Fedora continue to work?


Based on this proposed change, you will need an x86-64-capable CPU.


That's not how I read the proposal. No reason a P4 shouldn't work if
all you're requiring is SSE2+FXSR, right?


It will probably work, but it's more of a happy accident than a 
deliberate decision.  I would still suggest it if it were incompatible 
with Pentium 4 CPUs without x86-64 support.  (The fewer of these 
Netburst power guzzlers are running, the better, to be honest.)


Certainly, I don't see us jumping to long mode, doing the computation 
there, and jumping back, so it's hard to imagine that anything more than 
SSE2 (you need fxsr for SSE2 for the context switch AFAICS anyway) will 
be required by the i686 user space in the future.


Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/T6TWR7E7DZK5YURPGNN26CD2S5T7YUZ6/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Adam Jackson]

On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 16:04 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:

> > > This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
> > > packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
> > > x86-64 CPUs.
> > 
> > On which x86 CPU families will Fedora continue to work?
> 
> Based on this proposed change, you will need an x86-64-capable CPU.

That's not how I read the proposal. No reason a P4 shouldn't work if
all you're requiring is SSE2+FXSR, right?

- ajax
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6OYP2FKS4ASPWQ4OAZFLPUXFDTNUUEGK/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Adam Jackson]

On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 08:59 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 06/04/2018 04:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > It should, because -march=x86-64 implies just SSE2 and FXSR, and Xeon MP 
> > supports both.  But the intent is what the subject says: i686 binaries 
> > are for running legacy software on x86-64 systems, and nothing more.
> 
> So the 32-bit x86 SIG would be required to rebuild all of the userspace
> packages to run on actual 32-bit hardware, right?  (What would those be
> called, since i686 is taken?)

No. The 32-bit ABI level being targeted here is basically the Pentium
4, which was a 32-bit part. On a P3 or older, yes, you'd need a
rebuild, but the P4 was 2001 so we're talking about hardware old enough
to vote here.

If we did want to allow for pre-P4 32-bit userspace, what I'd probably
do is (mostly) change %_libdir to /usr/lib/sse2 for i686, and leave it
as /usr/lib for a (reintroduced) i586 architecture.

- ajax
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5ZTMW77HAWOFQN3QTA2BJB7IYQXWRUQW/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:09 AM Ralf Corsepius  wrote:
>
> On 06/04/2018 11:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 06/04/2018 10:50 AM, Guido Aulisi wrote:
>
> > It should, because -march=x86-64 implies just SSE2 and FXSR, and Xeon MP
> > supports both.  But the intent is what the subject says: i686 binaries
> > are for running legacy software on x86-64 systems, and nothing more.
>
> I do not agree with this sentiment all, as well as I can't deny finding
> your wording bewildering, because I think you actually are trying to say:
>
> - You (Florian) want to abandon the i686 architecture.
> - You (RH) want to play down the fact Fedora 28 is FUBARed on the PIII
> and instead of fixing the issues you want to kill it.

I'm going to be as clear as I possibly can here.  Red Hat, as a
company, is not going to put resources into fixing issues found on
Pentium III machines in Fedora, regardless of whether or not this
proposal passes.  There is an x86 SIG who was tasked with that kind of
activity.  The SIG should be fixing the issues it has responsibility
for.

josh
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JP7FTOLHV4M2ZCMBO7V7QKPSH3DTAAXR/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Florian Weimer]

On 06/04/2018 02:39 PM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:

== Detailed description ==
Currently, the i686 RPM packages are built in such a way that they are
compatible with very old i686 systems, such as the Pentium III.  The
only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
multi-lib RPMs.


Based on what data?


The mirror data I've seen, but it's really outdated at this point.


This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
x86-64 CPUs.


On which x86 CPU families will Fedora continue to work?


Based on this proposed change, you will need an x86-64-capable CPU.

Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6MNG7RWPR6DY6WZHI4SUAAF6VEAAENP4/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Ian Pilcher]

On 06/04/2018 04:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
It should, because -march=x86-64 implies just SSE2 and FXSR, and Xeon MP 
supports both.  But the intent is what the subject says: i686 binaries 
are for running legacy software on x86-64 systems, and nothing more.


So the 32-bit x86 SIG would be required to rebuild all of the userspace
packages to run on actual 32-bit hardware, right?  (What would those be
called, since i686 is taken?)

--

Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com
 "I grew up before Mark Zuckerberg invented friendship" 

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WZMWAPNARRWXNJX5LOLUBJYDIOK2I7EU/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 06/04/2018 11:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:

On 06/04/2018 10:50 AM, Guido Aulisi wrote:


It should, because -march=x86-64 implies just SSE2 and FXSR, and Xeon MP 
supports both.  But the intent is what the subject says: i686 binaries 
are for running legacy software on x86-64 systems, and nothing more.


I do not agree with this sentiment all, as well as I can't deny finding 
your wording bewildering, because I think you actually are trying to say:


- You (Florian) want to abandon the i686 architecture.
- You (RH) want to play down the fact Fedora 28 is FUBARed on the PIII 
and instead of fixing the issues you want to kill it.


Ralf
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JBZVYP5F7XLNS4Q3KO5JNEUHOC5S3SIL/

Re: [X86] Fwd: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Alexander Ploumistos]

> == Detailed description ==
> Currently, the i686 RPM packages are built in such a way that they are
> compatible with very old i686 systems, such as the Pentium III.  The
> only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
> support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
> installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> multi-lib RPMs.

Based on what data?

>  Furthermore, there are reports that the i686 kernel
> does not run stable on old hardware which is not x86-64-capable (
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/x...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/ZHV6I4IEO7GRYAZ4TUMO5VH2ZHLCNJZQ/
> ).

On some, not all.

> This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
> packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
> x86-64 CPUs.

On which x86 CPU families will Fedora continue to work?
I think this change should have been discussed on the x86 SIG mailing
list first, as it essentially goes against what the SIG had been
trying to do and deprives it of its purpose.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/E2S74E7LIFWK65N2V6XHCPGUXD2LTCRF/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Florian Weimer]

On 06/04/2018 10:50 AM, Guido Aulisi wrote:


This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
x86-64 CPUs.


Will Fedora 29 run on the CPU listed above?


It should, because -march=x86-64 implies just SSE2 and FXSR, and Xeon MP 
supports both.  But the intent is what the subject says: i686 binaries 
are for running legacy software on x86-64 systems, and nothing more.


Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XQYT3XJAMKQXYSD5TCL2Y5NOKHZGWPPV/

Re: F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Guido Aulisi]

2018-06-04 10:35 GMT+02:00 Jan Kurik :
> = Proposed System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64 =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/i686_Is_For_x86-64
>
>
> Owner(s):
>   * Florian Weimer 
>
>
> Fedora builds its i686 packages for use on x86-64 systems as multi-lib RPMs.
>
>
>
> == Detailed description ==
> Currently, the i686 RPM packages are built in such a way that they are
> compatible with very old i686 systems, such as the Pentium III.  The
> only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
> support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
> installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> multi-lib RPMs.  Furthermore, there are reports that the i686 kernel
> does not run stable on old hardware which is not x86-64-capable (
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/x...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/ZHV6I4IEO7GRYAZ4TUMO5VH2ZHLCNJZQ/
> ).

Fedora 27 i686 stil runs well on a HP ProLiant ML570 G2, I don't have
kernel issues, I was unaware of kernel problems on i686.

Output of lscpu:
Architecture:i686
CPU op-mode(s):  32-bit
Byte Order:  Little Endian
CPU(s):  8
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
Thread(s) per core:  2
Core(s) per socket:  1
Socket(s):   4
Vendor ID:   GenuineIntel
CPU family:  15
Model:   2
Model name:  Intel(R) Xeon(TM) MP CPU 2.70GHz
Stepping:6
CPU MHz: 2694.885
BogoMIPS:5389.77
Flags:   fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr
pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe
pebs bts cpuid cid xtpr

Kernel version: 4.16.11-200.fc27.i686+PAE #1 SMP Tue May 22 19:01:08
UTC 2018 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

> This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
> packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
> x86-64 CPUs.

Will Fedora 29 run on the CPU listed above?

> == Scope ==
> * Proposal owners:
> Adjust the redhat-rpm-config, gcc, and glibc packages to switch to the
> new compiler flags. Except for mstackrealign, there is substantial
> experience with this configuration downstream.
>
> * Other developers:
> Other developers can enable SSE2 optimization in their packages if
> they want, where this has been a compile-time option only.
>
> * Release engineering:
> https://pagure.io/releng/issues/7543 #7543
>
> ** List of deliverables: TBD
>
> * Policies and guidelines:
> i686 is no longer a primary architecture. The Packaging Guidelines do
> not currently require support for non-SSE2 x86 systems, so no change
> is required there.
>
> * Trademark approval:
> N/A (not needed for this Change)
> --
> Jan Kuřík
> JBoss EAP Program Manager
> Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CC22ZTFDB5L3BFSQG7M3TUZUVYKFUSKP/

Guido Aulisi
Fas account: tartina
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RE25T5GUJFSLZVRTQ7Z3JYB23PKH6Z6I/

F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jan Kurik]

= Proposed System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/i686_Is_For_x86-64


Owner(s):
  * Florian Weimer 


Fedora builds its i686 packages for use on x86-64 systems as multi-lib RPMs.



== Detailed description ==
Currently, the i686 RPM packages are built in such a way that they are
compatible with very old i686 systems, such as the Pentium III.  The
only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
multi-lib RPMs.  Furthermore, there are reports that the i686 kernel
does not run stable on old hardware which is not x86-64-capable (
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/x...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/ZHV6I4IEO7GRYAZ4TUMO5VH2ZHLCNJZQ/
).
This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
x86-64 CPUs.


== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
Adjust the redhat-rpm-config, gcc, and glibc packages to switch to the
new compiler flags. Except for mstackrealign, there is substantial
experience with this configuration downstream.

* Other developers:
Other developers can enable SSE2 optimization in their packages if
they want, where this has been a compile-time option only.

* Release engineering:
https://pagure.io/releng/issues/7543 #7543

** List of deliverables: TBD

* Policies and guidelines:
i686 is no longer a primary architecture. The Packaging Guidelines do
not currently require support for non-SSE2 x86 systems, so no change
is required there.

* Trademark approval:
N/A (not needed for this Change)
-- 
Jan Kuřík
JBoss EAP Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CC22ZTFDB5L3BFSQG7M3TUZUVYKFUSKP/

F29 System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64

[Jan Kurik]

= Proposed System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/i686_Is_For_x86-64


Owner(s):
  * Florian Weimer 


Fedora builds its i686 packages for use on x86-64 systems as multi-lib RPMs.



== Detailed description ==
Currently, the i686 RPM packages are built in such a way that they are
compatible with very old i686 systems, such as the Pentium III.  The
only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
support long NOPs, for Intel CET.  However, the majority of
installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
multi-lib RPMs.  Furthermore, there are reports that the i686 kernel
does not run stable on old hardware which is not x86-64-capable (
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/x...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/ZHV6I4IEO7GRYAZ4TUMO5VH2ZHLCNJZQ/
).
This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
x86-64 CPUs.


== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
Adjust the redhat-rpm-config, gcc, and glibc packages to switch to the
new compiler flags. Except for mstackrealign, there is substantial
experience with this configuration downstream.

* Other developers:
Other developers can enable SSE2 optimization in their packages if
they want, where this has been a compile-time option only.

* Release engineering:
https://pagure.io/releng/issues/7543 #7543

** List of deliverables: TBD

* Policies and guidelines:
i686 is no longer a primary architecture. The Packaging Guidelines do
not currently require support for non-SSE2 x86 systems, so no change
is required there.

* Trademark approval:
N/A (not needed for this Change)
-- 
Jan Kuřík
JBoss EAP Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CC22ZTFDB5L3BFSQG7M3TUZUVYKFUSKP/