Ubuntu discussing removing support for pre-Haswell processors

[MurphCID]

The OP says that they are "testing it."

That saying has context which was clarified.
https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/trying-o ... lf/40963/8

mwhudson:
I should have expected that given we didn’t say what our plans are for the future people would start to fill in the gaps a bit. But the reason we didn’t say anything about that is mostly that we haven’t decided where we’re going with this. We are literally just running some investigations!

What I can say with certainty is:

Nothing is going to change wrt the amd64 baseline in 24.04.

We are very aware of the issue of users who have hardware that can’t run v3 or even v2! Hopefully we can do something that gets the best of both worlds but like I said, no concrete plans yet.

It would be nice when some people posting original comments with click-bait like subject edited such subject accordingly after same subject being clarified. There are dozens of such posts running pages and pages like a squirrel in a wheel.

There was nothing click bait about it, I never said they were, I very clearly said they were DISCUSSING it, not that it was a done deal.

[t42]

There was nothing click bait about it, I never said they were, I very clearly said they were DISCUSSING it, not that it was a done deal.

They are not discussing removing support for pre-Haswell processors, that 's not true.

we haven’t decided where we’re going with this. We are literally just running some investigations!

What I can say with certainty is:

Nothing is going to change wrt the amd64 baseline in 24.04.

We are very aware of the issue of users who have hardware that can’t run v3 or even v2! Hopefully we can do something that gets the best of both worlds but like I said, no concrete plans yet.

[xenopeek]

admin note: the forum rules do no allow posting chatbot replies. Some posts were removed from this topic.

The v1 through v4 issue was explained in detail in the blog post the video referenced. If you don't want to be called out for click-baiting then instead of linking to a video with comments about a blog post, link directly to the blog post. The original title "Optimising Ubuntu performance on amd64 architecture" made clear the purpose is to improve performance. Removing pre-Haswell support is not its own purpose, as the title here can be seen to suggest.

Phoronix (as always) has already benchmarked the v3 build against the (normal) v1 build: https://www.phoronix.com/review/ubuntu- ... -benchmark. All the benchmarks show the v3 build as faster than the v1 build and some show huge performance gains. At no cost other than using the more efficient CPU instructions available in more recent CPUs.

On Linux Mint/LMDE you can run /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --help (on non-Debian based distros /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --help) to check whether your CPU supports the v2, v3 and v4 levels. You're looking for this section in the output, where the keyword supported means your CPU supports that level:

Code: Select all

Subdirectories of glibc-hwcaps directories, in priority order:
  x86-64-v4 (supported, searched)
  x86-64-v3 (supported, searched)
  x86-64-v2 (supported, searched)

[rossdv8]

. . If you don't want to be called out for click-baiting then instead of linking to a video with comments about a blog post, link directly to the blog post. . .

OR, since the video was about Ubuntu discussing removing support for pre-Haswell processors, and some of us have half a dozen of the things, and since the Topic made us aware that is was happenning (in the case of one or two who were not aware of it) and because things like dumping support for 32 bit architecture sort of crept up on us, the Title of the Blog post was definitely NOT even vaguely 'Click Bait' and the poster did nothing that was even vaguely pushing th elimits of the rules.

Anyone who was not interested in the pre-Haswell thing should have simply ignored the post.
Anyone, like myself who still runs several 10 year old systems can read the post, watch the video, note that it mentions a blog post and look it up for ourselves if we have any thoughts about it. Or we can discuss it in replies to the post, where someone with a little intelligence (alternatively, maybe an admin) might link to the blog post . .

[Hoser Rob]

... things like dumping support for 32 bit architecture sort of crept up on us...

Only to those who didn't want to hear it.

I used to use 32 bit Linux on my wee POC old netbook because of its limited RAM. As soon as I heard that Google was going to drop 32 bit Chrome I knew the writing was on the wall. I installed 64 bit Linux on that box pretty fast. It's been years since I did that. To anyone with "a little intelligence" it was pathetically obvious.

[rossdv8]

... things like dumping support for 32 bit architecture sort of crept up on us...

Only to those who didn't want to hear it.

I used to use 32 bit Linux on my wee POC old netbook because of its limited RAM. As soon as I heard that Google was going to drop 32 bit Chrome I knew the writing was on the wall. I installed 64 bit Linux on that box pretty fast. It's been years since I did that. To anyone with "a little intelligence" it was pathetically obvious.

Likewise with the possibility of dropping support with earlier 64 bit stuff - but there will always be a few who missed the discussion. And I suspect just as there are still distros that support 32 bit systems, there will be distros that support older 64 bit gear. And it will be interesting to see where Ubuntu goes 'if' as some distros seem to be doing, they follow suit and draw a line.

But I bet this one still creeps up on some of those who 'didn;t want to hear it' last time. Thar's allus a few in ever crowd !

[Neophyte]

The OP says that they are "testing it."

That saying has context which was clarified.
https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/trying-o ... lf/40963/8

mwhudson:
I should have expected that given we didn’t say what our plans are for the future people would start to fill in the gaps a bit. But the reason we didn’t say anything about that is mostly that we haven’t decided where we’re going with this. We are literally just running some investigations!

What I can say with certainty is:

Nothing is going to change wrt the amd64 baseline in 24.04.

We are very aware of the issue of users who have hardware that can’t run v3 or even v2! Hopefully we can do something that gets the best of both worlds but like I said, no concrete plans yet.

It would be nice when some people posting original comments with click-bait like subject edited such subject accordingly after same subject being clarified. There are dozens of such posts running pages and pages like a squirrel in a wheel.

That doesn't contradict what I was saying at all.

"we are discussing it"
""""""HOPEFULLY""" We can do something that gets the best of both worlds"
"running investigations"
"no concrete plans"

All of these are massive red flags. It means they are really considering and discussing doing it. "We haven't decided yet," or "it won't happen in the very next update," are not the counter-points that you seem to think they are. Doom delayed is not doom denied.

[xenopeek]

It's mid 2026 before it would possibly affect Linux Mint users, because 24.04 will still be on v1.

"Best of both worlds" may entail offering both v1 and v3 builds. Similar as for Arch Linux, which is also on v1, you can switch to the ALHP repositories that offer v2, v3 and even v4 builds of all packages. You enable the repository that your hardware supports.

[Dullard du Jour]

It's mid 2026 before it would possibly affect Linux Mint users, because 24.04 will still be on v1.

"Best of both worlds" may entail offering both v1 and v3 builds. Similar as for Arch Linux, which is also on v1, you can switch to the ALHP repositories that offer v2, v3 and even v4 builds of all packages. You enable the repository that your hardware supports.

Using your previous command, my system supports v3 and v2, but not v4. Are there any paths to support those versions on my Vanessa XFCE install?

[oswald_c]

It's mid 2026 before it would possibly affect Linux Mint users, because 24.04 will still be on v1.

"Best of both worlds" may entail offering both v1 and v3 builds. Similar as for Arch Linux, which is also on v1, you can switch to the ALHP repositories that offer v2, v3 and even v4 builds of all packages. You enable the repository that your hardware supports.

Using your previous command, my system supports v3 and v2, but not v4. Are there any paths to support those versions on my Vanessa XFCE install?

The only path is new hardware i.e. a processor that supports v4.

[xenopeek]

Using your previous command, my system supports v3 and v2, but not v4. Are there any paths to support those versions on my Vanessa XFCE install?

Ubuntu only have test build with v3 of Ubuntu Server 23.04. Packages are not available outside of that test build. If you want to use v3 for a package you have to recompile it with compiler flags to enable v3. And do that for each package

[Dullard du Jour]

Using your previous command, my system supports v3 and v2, but not v4. Are there any paths to support those versions on my Vanessa XFCE install?

Ubuntu only have test build with v3 of Ubuntu Server 23.04. Packages are not available outside of that test build. If you want to use v3 for a package you have to recompile it with compiler flags to enable v3. And do that for each package

Yipes!! Well, that is more excitement than an old fellow can take, I will be patient.
I vote for Mint to quickly move in the direction to support v2 and higher, or at least provide a version of Mint for those of us who stay current on hardware. I know many will disagree but I have never held onto technology older than 5 years, especially for what one may consider "mission critical" or "daily driver".

Thanks for the reply.

[Hoser Rob]

... I know many will disagree but I have never held onto technology older than 5 years, especially for what one may consider "mission critical" or "daily driver". ...

I do get your point but you may be surprised how many IT people I know whose main work laptops have been 10-12 years old. And they are making money off these boxes. It's not that love or have any nostalgia for old computers though. They just don't want to have to spend the time (unpaid) to set up and configure a new box.

[Dullard du Jour]

... I know many will disagree but I have never held onto technology older than 5 years, especially for what one may consider "mission critical" or "daily driver". ...

I do get your point but you may be surprised how many IT people I know whose main work laptops have been 10-12 years old. And they are making money off these boxes. It's not that love or have any nostalgia for old computers though. They just don't want to have to spend the time (unpaid) to set up and configure a new box.

Oh listen, I absolutely get that. Before I retired, I had two old laptops, a Dell and a HP, one with Win 98 SE, and one with XP. The company did not know I had them and I kept them simply to get into systems without having to deal with Win 10 or 11. The new laptops were network centric and had too much security and eavesdropping ability, features that did not always work well when handshaking with some of the older RS-232, DB9 systems. I was probably the last person in America with laptops that had Procomm+ on them. When I retired, people were lining up for my laptops and test equipment.

I spent a number of years maintaining a NT 4 server in our office that we used to interface the company, it was nicely shoehorned in and nobody paid it much attention. Eventually though it was found and we were forced onto another company network with Windows workstations. Our problems began when we went to Windows workstations and network centric laptops.

[wwblm]

I know many will disagree but I have never held onto technology older than 5 years, especially for what one may consider "mission critical" or "daily driver".

To each their own and I'm sure there are use cases where new tech is actually a sound investment. Seems like more than 25 years ago that I used to operate that way. Moore's law isn't what it used to be. I sure don't see where I would recoup the investment for a new laptop compared to the relative peanuts I spent on this one. Speed just isn't an issue for anything I do. Plus, as I stated earlier in the thread, these older machines are fully functional and it is an irresponsible waste of non-renewable resources to doom them to the e-waste stream.

[Neophyte]

Using your previous command, my system supports v3 and v2, but not v4. Are there any paths to support those versions on my Vanessa XFCE install?

Ubuntu only have test build with v3 of Ubuntu Server 23.04. Packages are not available outside of that test build. If you want to use v3 for a package you have to recompile it with compiler flags to enable v3. And do that for each package

Yipes!! Well, that is more excitement than an old fellow can take, I will be patient.
I vote for Mint to quickly move in the direction to support v2 and higher, or at least provide a version of Mint for those of us who stay current on hardware. I know many will disagree but I have never held onto technology older than 5 years, especially for what one may consider "mission critical" or "daily driver".

Thanks for the reply.

Every IT person I know has personal PCs that are older than 10 years old. They might have newer Laptops and Phones, but their desktop is a lot older. Even my PC has a 10 to 15 year old CPU in it, and it paired with a 3060 GPU.

It isn't the 90s anymore. In the 90s, PC tech evolved insanely fast; a PC you bought 6 months earlier already felt obsolete. It was a crazy time. Now, there haven't been any advancements that feel as significant as that in the past decade. We have hit a point diminishing returns. Other than GPUs for gaming, 10 year old hardware still feels as functional as 1 day old hardware these days.

[MurphCID]

That doesn't contradict what I was saying at all.

"we are discussing it"
""""""HOPEFULLY""" We can do something that gets the best of both worlds"
"running investigations"
"no concrete plans"

All of these are massive red flags. It means they are really considering and discussing doing it. "We haven't decided yet," or "it won't happen in the very next update," are not the counter-points that you seem to think they are. Doom delayed is not doom denied.

I worked in a government agency for many years, and when I hear "Bureaucrat speak" with the weasel words and phrases as shown above, I know that it is a done deal, and only the greatest of push back will prevent it. "We have not decided yet" is a huge,huge red flag which translates to normal English as: "We are going to do it, but we are not going to admit it until it is too late for you luddites to object, and you will just have to suck it up".

[MurphCID]

Every IT person I know has personal PCs that are older than 10 years old. They might have newer Laptops and Phones, but their desktop is a lot older. Even my PC has a 10 to 15 year old CPU in it, and it paired with a 3060 GPU.

It isn't the 90s anymore. In the 90s, PC tech evolved insanely fast; a PC you bought 6 months earlier already felt obsolete. It was a crazy time. Now, there haven't been any advancements that feel as significant as that in the past decade. We have hit a point diminishing returns. Other than GPUs for gaming, 10 year old hardware still feels as functional as 1 day old hardware these days.

Good point, my Ryzen 1700 system from 2016 still feels blazing fast, with the 2070 Nvidia card, and I cannot justify a better video card or even processor except with the; "I want it" reason. The Thelio (which is gathering dust under the desk) is far, far overkill for what I need. The games I play (civilization, Stellaris, etc) don't need a 16 core and 4090 to run well.

But obsoleting systems just because you can is never a good idea.

[MurphCID]

Well here is from Phoronix, a legit site, not AI generated, and I suspect many follow. Red Hat is looking at the V3 requirement: https://twitter.com/phoronix/status/1742514601999085857

Red Hat's Florian Weimer wrote yesterday on the Red Hat Developer Blog:
"Even if we cannot show performance improvements for software included in RHEL, it may still make sense to go ahead with the switch. The reason is that if RHEL 10 requires the x86-64-v3 baseline, ISVs will be able to rely on it, too. This reduces maintenance cost for some ISVs because they no longer need to maintain (and test) AVX and non-AVX code paths in their manually tuned software.
...
While our plan of record may change based on further findings, we are excited about the prospect that RHEL 10 will move to the x86-64-v3 baseline. You can check out your own software today by rebuilding it with -march=x86-64-v3 and testing it against the x86-64-v3 package builds from the CentOS ISA SIG."

[xenopeek]

Red Hat being a commercial server OS that makes sense. Red Hat 9 has 10 years of support left so any server with a decade old CPU, or older, can keep using Red Hat 9 for another 10 years.

Fedora are exploring building optimized binaries in addition to baseline binaries (level 1) and the OS automatically utilizing the highest level the hardware supports: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Fedora-40-Faster-x86-64

I'd guess if Ubuntu proceed with this they will follow what ALHP does and what Fedora is planning — have both baseline and optimized binaries. In any case it's nothing to get worked up over as it doesn't affect Linux Mint before ­mid 2026 at the earliest.

my Ryzen 1700 system from 2016 still feels blazing fast, with the 2070 Nvidia card, and I cannot justify a better video card or even processor except with the; "I want it" reason. […]
But obsoleting systems just because you can is never a good idea.

Even the 1st Zen CPUs support AVX/AVX2 so your system may support x86-64-v3. Did you test it?

On Linux Mint/LMDE you can run /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --help (on non-Debian based distros /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --help) to check whether your CPU supports the v2, v3 and v4 levels. You're looking for this section in the output, where the keyword supported means your CPU supports that level:

Code: Select all

Subdirectories of glibc-hwcaps directories, in priority order:
  x86-64-v4 (supported, searched)
  x86-64-v3 (supported, searched)
  x86-64-v2 (supported, searched)