Future direction of x86 builds

[Michael Richardson]

Elliott Mitchell <ehem+openwrt at m5p.com> wrote:
    > The x86 build choices *really* need some attention.  x86 is low-ish
    > priority for OpenWRT as most x86 systems aren't constrained to the
    > degree OpenWRT's embedded targets are.  Yet at the same time x86 system
    > is useful for testing and there are network switches with x86 processor
    > inside.

1. I think that you are right to think about dropping generic.

2. I know that geode CPUs were used widely in "stuff" until 6-8 years ago.
   I don't know if that is worth keeping.  I would treat it as some other
   CPU/arch, and consider it like one might consider some 2016 era ASUS.
   So, if there is someone who wants to maintain it...

3. I agree with you that a *virtio* image is super-useful for testing.
   (I *also* use one to test virtualized images of an entirely different embedded
   system.  I need to make sure it works *with* OpenWRT in a variety of
   configurations...)
   I don't think that this needs much in the way of kernel modules.
   Compiling everything in might be a win when testing.
   Call it virtioAmd64 or something like that.

4. I think that the case of an amd64 image that has a *real* PCIe ethernet card
   and/or PCIe 802.11 card passed in, suitable for someone who has some
   "small" {by 2026 desktop standards} box hosting all sorts of stuff is
   yet another *different* situation.
   Yes, it needs lots of possible kernel modules, maybe bunches of USB
   modules too.     I would give this a different name; I don't know what.
   "guest64" or something like that.


So to me, #3 is a group need, and I have no problem if it's amd64 only.

#2 and #4 should depend upon someone who wants to maintain it.
#2 is 32-bit, so really has nothing in common with the rest.

#4 could be 32-bit or amd64.  32-bit VM guest systems used to use their ram
better, and that mattered a decade ago when many small-office users were
using recycled hosts that were 4-8 years older.  Today....

    > I think instead the various hypervisors may deserve specialized
    > subtargets.  In particular I note while x86 computers with 128MB of
    > memory are rare, hypervisors allow for VMs of 128MB.  I notice at least
    > 10% of the memory of a 128MB VM will be consumed by unusable drivers.

That's okay.  A long time ago (2008) I used *a lot* of tiny VMs as routers as
part of a virtual desktop infrastructure, and having them small was more
important.   I remember we couldn't make RHEL even install with less than 1GB
(yum!), but I can't recall if we settled for OpenWRT or Debian. Company died soon.

    > Perhaps the biggest issue right now is decisions are needed.  Rather a
    > lot of mold has built up on x86 and a direction is needed.

:-)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/attachments/20260430/ae5dd571/attachment.sig>