> >
> >Maybe that's something that CentOS have added (don't know, haven't
> >looked), RHELSA doesn't support it that I'm aware of and they're
> >definitely only 64K page size. The biggest change is in rpm and the
> >arch mappings there.
> They might not support it, but it most certainly works. There are no
> changes specific to this that I can find in CentOS. All I changed was
> rebuilt the host kernel with 4KB pages and ARM32 support (still an
> aarch64 kernel). C7 armv7hl guest is completely unmodified apart from
> the /etc/rpm/platform being set explicitly.
>
> The main point being that the original assertion that making this
> work would require rpm, yum, packagekit, mock and other code changes
> doesn't seem to be correct based on empirical evidence.
>
It may work with rpm, but, as per the original post, dnf does not
support it, and dnf should not support it as long as Fedora
does not support a 32 bit userspace on aarch64.
>
> Despite Linus' words of wisdom to the contrary over the years. :-(
>
Linus is not God, and we'd rather support as broad as possible a
range of hardware.
> >Yes, because the instructions can be dealt with by the hypervisor
> >whether through emulation, or some other mechanism.
>
> If it's going to run in emulation you might as well run it on
> some highest end possible x86 hardware, it'll be slightly less
> excruciatingly slow. And last I checked, that still had issues
> with availability of kernels and architectures emulated.
Actually, with kvm, you get pretty much the same speed as native
aarch64 vms. Also, server grade aarch64 h/w will give you
pretty decent performance. I'm less sure about SBCs; they're
dependent on the SoC used.
On the whole, 32 bit arm vms are going to have the same
performance on aarch64 as i686 on x86_64.
John.
_______________________________________________
arm mailing list
arm@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/arm@lists.fedoraproject.org
No comments:
Post a Comment