On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 05:04:38PM +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote: > > > >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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
