!VhzbGHamdfMiGxpXyg:robins.wtf

NixOS LXC

34 Members
lxc, lxd, incus discussions related to NixOS14 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
18 Apr 2024
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephens
─❯ incus config set mighty-anteater limits.cpu=2
Error: Key "limits.cpu" cannot be updated when VM is running
13:51:43
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephensaarch64....13:51:50
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephensmaybe i'll leave the x86 condition in the udev rule13:51:57
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephenswas trying to dig into aarch64 nested virtualization because i'd love to be able to run VM tests on this architecture, but i don't even think qemu supports this for aarch6414:16:23
@hexa:lossy.networkhexahuh14:16:42
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaI have no aarch64 hosts, but works on x86_64-linux 🙂14:16:53
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephensyeah x86 is good14:17:03
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephensthere's this patchset... https://patchew.org/QEMU/20230227163718.62003-1-miguel.luis@oracle.com/14:17:16
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephensfor an older qemu14:17:29
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephens
[root@nixos:/etc/udev/rules.d]# dmesg | grep -i el1
[    0.006279] CPU features: detected: 32-bit EL1 Support
[    0.006368] CPU: All CPU(s) started at EL1
14:17:44
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephensvirtualization requires EL2...14:18:00
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephens(that's inside a VM)14:18:12
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephens

meanwhile on the host (an rpi4)

─❯ sudo dmesg | rg el2
[    0.031475] CPU: All CPU(s) started at EL2
14:18:47
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephensbased on the qemu commit log it seems like people are working on this stuff, so maybe one day14:25:53
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephensi was just trying to see if it's something we have disabled14:26:56
@hexa:lossy.networkhexacool 14:27:08
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephenshttps://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/30491914:28:14
@hexa:lossy.networkhexathe x86 check is redundant, no? 🙂14:32:50
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaand please no pkgs.stdenv indirection14:33:06
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephensjust figured no need to put the file on all platforms. i can remove the condition, but how would you condition this instead?14:34:40
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaeither you deploy the rule only when stdenv.hostPlaform.isx86_6414:35:05
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaand then the arch check in the rule is redundant14:35:19
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaor you deploy it always and keep the udev arch checkl14:35:28
@hexa:lossy.networkhexa * or you deploy it always and keep the udev arch check14:35:30
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaimo.14:35:31
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephens that's fine. i guess i'm asking what the alternative to pkgs.stdenv.hostPlatform.isx86 is? 14:35:58
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephense.g. what would i reference instead of that boolean?14:38:53
@hexa:lossy.networkhexahm?14:40:16
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaisx86_64?14:40:22
@adam:robins.wtfadamcstephensyou said "and please no pkgs.stdenv indirection" so i'm just trying to understand how you'd write the condition instead :)14:40:38

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 10