When the dream becomes a nightmare was:[Re: What's the plan for powerpc64 in FreeBSD 16]

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--0-1618145056-1763485692=:1627
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

Hi,

Honestly, I have spent years on powerpc64 and have hired several=20
programmers to help with some of the bug fixes at no small expense. This=20
is both time and money that I won't get back. What makes it worst is that=
=20
I needed powerpc32 to do my first install, so even removing this hurts. I=
=20
really don't think that you can see how many downloads of powerpc there is=
=20
because most of the time I downloaded source. In fact, I have done 100's=20
of downloads and 10 of thousands of updates with git. I can't commit, so=20
everything was given and then committed by someone else. There is plenty=20
of new powerpc hardware. I mean the power 11 was just released, so I am=20
trying to understand why this is so important to a few people to have it=20
removed. I would be happy to provided hosting for powerpc port, if it is=20
all about money. Really, I think it is about something else. Also, it=20
need to be on powerpc because I don't own any i386 hardware anymore.

Kind Regards,
Al



On Tue, 18 Nov 2025, Konstantin Belousov wrote:

> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 13:11:39 +0200
> From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
> To: Timothy Pearson <tpearson@raptorengineering.com>
> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>,
>     "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>
> Subject: Re: What's the plan for powerpc64 in FreeBSD 16
>=20
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 04:12:15AM -0600, Timothy Pearson wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Konstantin Belousov" <kostikbel@gmail.com>
>>> To: "Timothy Pearson" <tpearson@raptorengineering.com>
>>> Cc: "Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@fr=
eebsd.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 4:09:41 AM
>>> Subject: Re: What's the plan for powerpc64 in FreeBSD 16
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 03:22:17AM -0600, Timothy Pearson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Timothy Pearson" <tpearson@raptorengineeringinc.com>
>>>>> To: "Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org"
>>>>> <arch@freebsd.org>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 3:13:05 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: What's the plan for powerpc64 in FreeBSD 16
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/17/25 10:57, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As we're getting close to the release date for FreeBSD 15.0, it's ti=
me
>>>>>> to take stock of another architectures. This time, I'd like your
>>>>>> feedback on the following plans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'd like to retire powerpc64 and powerpc64le just before the FreeBS=
D
>>>>>> stable/16 branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This would give powerpc64 another two years of support in main,
>>>>>> followed by sustaining support on stable/14 and stable/15 until
>>>>>> the=C2=A0end of those branches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've come to this point because the port is dwindling and we have a
>>>>>> cost associated with keeping it around. The number of developers has
>>>>>> fallen off so only a couple remain. Issues in powerpc are taking
>>>>>> longer and longer to discover and resolve. The hardware has been a
>>>>>> huge source of frustration for clusteradmin and we've no alternative
>>>>>> for developers. There's only a tiny user base. We have trouble
>>>>>> building packages for it. Also, powerpc has a number of interesting
>>>>>> features of the architecture that make it the odd arch out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's also big endian. While that may seem like a reason to keep it
>>>>>> around, if we really can't support it and we're not actively testing
>>>>>> functionality of the system, then keeping this around actually doesn=
't
>>>>>> help keep us honest. It just gives us a burden we must bear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my opinion, powerpc64 appears to have already fallen below critic=
al
>>>>>> mass, despite being a sentimental favorite for a number of FreeBSD
>>>>>> developers. As such, I'd like us to consider planning to retire it
>>>>>> before we branch 16.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My questions today: Are you using this port? How many people are usi=
ng
>>>>>> it? And what's the installed base? It appears to be somewhat less th=
an
>>>>>> that of either i386 or armv7 based on user surveys and popularity at
>>>>>> conferences. Also, any other comments you might have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Warner
>>>>>
>>>>> We are very much using this port on a number of machines, and have pl=
ans
>>>>> to expand further.=C2=A0 We use the=C2=A0powerpc64le=C2=A0port in cri=
tical
>>>>> infrastructure applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> While we do not participate in the user surveys for security reasons,
>>>>> and many other POWER users may be in a similar situation, I would lik=
e
>>>>> to offer an alternate means of gauging powerpc64le (as opposed to
>>>>> powerpc big endian) via the Debian popularity contest [1].=C2=A0 This=
 clearly
>>>>> shows the decline in powerpc64 but also the increase in powerpc64le
>>>>> installs -- in fact, at least according to those statistics, powerpc6=
4le
>>>>> is about to overtake armel in terms of overall deployment base.
>>>>>
>>>>> Raptor remains committed to the architecture as a whole, and we have
>>>>> resources to assist with development.=C2=A0 In fact, we sponsor sever=
al
>>>>> FreeBSD build machines already in our cloud environment, and have ker=
nel
>>>>> developers working on expanding and maintaining the FreeBSD codebase.
>>>>> If there is any concern regarding hardware availability or developer
>>>>> resources, Raptor is willing and able to assist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, I do want to point out that this is the only open server-gra=
de
>>>>> ISA in existence.=C2=A0 This is the main reason Raptor selected it in=
 the
>>>>> first place, and why Raptor has remained committed to its overall
>>>>> support and containment.=C2=A0 As we continue porting to e.g. Xen and=
 other
>>>>> operating systems, I would hope that we can reach a point where at le=
ast
>>>>> the powerpc64le support is not only maintained but is able to be
>>>>> promoted to a higher status within FreeBSD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://popcon.debian.org/
>>>>
>>>> I also wanted to add, I know we had a rough time getting our patches m=
erged into
>>>> the FreeBSD tree in the past, but you can see recent activity on e.g. =
in-kernel
>>>> AES support.  This is a direct result of our use case and we do not se=
e any
>>>> alternative architecture on the horizon that will meet both the self-s=
overeign
>>>> and performance requirements of not only our application, but many sim=
ilar
>>>> applications with the EU.
>>>>
>>>> If it helps, I'm willing to step up as a maintainer and make sure that=
 at least
>>>> powerpc64le does not block the release process.  In terms of my creden=
tials in
>>>> this area, I have been maintaining the powerpc64le port of Chromium fo=
r many
>>>> years, on a far faster release cadence than FreeBSD; I don't foresee a=
ny major
>>>> difficulties in keeping the architecture up to date.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can we please, as the part of the commitment for the ppc support, have
>>> a patch submitted for the rtld wart fix?
>>> I mean, we should have properly architectured hook for ppc64 to do the
>>> hack in libexec/rtld-elf/rtld.c under the #ifdef powerpc, for auxv
>>> renumbering compat.
>>
>> I don't see why not.  This is exactly the reason we have FTE resources a=
ssigned to maintain the software ecosystem for ppc64 -- if there are any ot=
her such issues just let me know and I'll make sure they get fixed.
>
> Great.
> In fact, I went ahead and drafted the change I want, in
> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D53801
>
> I am not sure if this is needed for both ppc and ppc64/ppc64le.
> Also I did not handled other arches until ppc part is finalized.
>
> Could you please get somebody answer the question above, and then
> have the patch tested, please?
>
--0-1618145056-1763485692=:1627--