From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Wed Jun 13 18:23:33 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 960051003853 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:23:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-io0-x231.google.com (mail-io0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27E4972125 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:23:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-io0-x231.google.com with SMTP id e15-v6so4481560iog.1 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:23:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=J3zITzvsvjTdAw/8ifyG8amwcSL2ZhA+8cXwOdVrjcM=; b=Glp6DnNZ7no40uvrmpt6EAzon5nO5NSNHQKnC3ZKqq/4GvE0/4MEEMj/7WsXXAUbZ6 1+6y5+2XO5pt6wRK9lU4pHeiIFgzAe2pEbrGHVRBRTsmtWSXcgvwA0nLkfN/EgVIMJri L76nY4svtH/MBH4Lzz2zJJDbkIOB+IWkd3xowqv4O8rotg0K9UEjS+N8dZUFnUhEHS5z C6X4ai/hRA6MpFvKGNZAChQKeY2b9yBirQFybDBOv7x6vnqZWzQsLP8hz1D81RXNi2uP XFgRjZSteW6vokya4b0g5uefO7xzoRPjUykrtb6KMIBkjPahW/+8aOkokcoUTTrD3O4x c/MQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J3zITzvsvjTdAw/8ifyG8amwcSL2ZhA+8cXwOdVrjcM=; b=d8Mrf4DZHSqvQXA6Kh5+8tZVSLLDqStnb5xT62vGRZcf3JdBDNnZyc30OVJ0KL3pZ5 mL5VylA0HeHhRJcS4SOmGzf3g/6EroWLKq35agV8Jls5xVn2yOWrrfx1Jl0qcXhFgl1z 0NQkGvDAyUrEG4aLSMIYPokbkXDyWBTUHett3ALYbOCOlaP9z25Ac+84cEvo5+8VsfKc fErtVOWxgecwd3Ry+xp5Kk8iYgCp4cG5iCeYNcnGF5g0cZL68XqDPpKCT8udIueAapHg mmoXU7KAED5ySVA1fuVREYKftU2IFot1zj1LdK0RfHrnr2tRy6CZGE7Zh4jd2rvsiumF /K2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2DF+iW/XoxfGXnfkxlmPw+ISfAhxPjvgVZyzmzjPdZeuqEzj88 UQ+/JfkcY4NsHbeL5DJvCrQ0h/iE8gmOaqhCelIK2Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKI5maW7pHL08UCUyjxShuQPLOhPd9rqkHxITOOK3m8Jag+jPznBCJCBGBbEX8ZWXDajDktOdrTAu5W0Vxc8W48= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:284b:: with SMTP id o72-v6mr5749459ioo.168.1528914212496; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:23:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 2002:a4f:d028:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:23:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2603:300b:6:5100:1052:acc7:f9de:2b6d] In-Reply-To: References: <201806131739.w5DHd6sl040722@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> From: Warner Losh Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:23:31 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vdCgBYSjz-W0iLJh8Yz1Qz218uA Message-ID: Subject: Re: Armeb removal before 12 To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.26 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:23:33 -0000 On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Rodney W. Grimes < > freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > >> > I'd like to remove armeb before 12.0. >> > >> > It's poorly supported today. >> > >> > Nobody has tested the concurrency kit changes on it. And ck is now >> > mandatory. We don't even know if it works or not. >> > >> > Last time we asked, it took quite a while to find users. >> > >> > It maxes out at 256MB of RAM. This is barely large enough for FreeBSD to >> > run in. >> >> 64MB is usable for 32 bit archs, I have many VM's running in >> that configuration, so this item should not be in this list. > > > Yes and no. A VM is a different beast to a real box. arm requires more > memory in general, and a little more on real machines. > > You can run it in 128MB and do useful things, but not very many things. > One cannot, for example, run a wifi access point on arm in 128MB, at least > on this hardware. Adrian's ultra-stripped down stuff might be possible, but > nobody has ported it to this hardware despite it being ported to many weird > things. Likewise with the ZRouter project. You could run a simple sshd / > dns server on it, but there's lots of other alternatives for that which are > dirt cheap. > > One can, with a lot of effort, do 64MB too, but it's more effort than for > i386. Even at 64MB on i386, though, the number of things you can do is > quite limited. You can't build anything on that machine. DNS + SSH is > possible here as well, as long as the zones are too big. > > So I'll concede the point it's possible, and I'm not looking to make it > not be possible. However, we do need to draw the line somewhere, and this > is but one factor of many. Were it the only factor here, we wouldn't be > contemplating removal. Most people want to do more ambitious things that > can be done in 256MB is all I was trying to say. > Just to followup... On my 11.0 internal DHCP / DNS server (dnsmasq), I have a Allwinner A20 board with 1GB ram that runs between 100-120MB avm 120-1320MB wired with ~750MB free. That's what I've been basing my 256MB to run comfortably statements on. It's possible to do it with less, but it takes a lot of tuning, custom kernels, and legwork to make it happen. This box has only 14 processes, apart from kernel threads and is pretty minimal. Warner