On Feb 19, 2025, at 09:42, Olivier Cochard-Labbé <oliv...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 6:05 PM Mark Millard <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Another example might be if new VM contexts should be added, >> such as UTM for macOS. What do kenv smbios.system.product , >> sysctl kern.vm_guest , and sysctl kern.hz report for UTM on: >> >> ) amd64 macOS >> ) aarch64 macOS >> ) . . . ? >> > > Hi, > > UTM on Apple M3 running aarch64 FreeBSD VM (main branch): > > olivier@vm:~ $ kenv smbios.system.product > QEMU Virtual Machine > olivier@vm:~ $ sysctl kern.vm_guest > kern.vm_guest: generic > olivier@vm:~ $ sysctl kern.hz > kern.hz: 100 > > UTM on Apple Intel running amd64 FreeBSD 14.2 VM: > > root@freebsd:~ # kenv smbios.system.product > Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009) > root@freebsd:~ # sysctl kern.vm_guest > kern.vm_guest: generic > root@freebsd:~ # sysctl kern.hz > kern.hz: 100 Was the above Apple Virtualization instead of QEMU based virtualization? > UTM on Apple Intel running aarch64 FreeBSD 14.2 VM: > > root@freebsd:~ # kenv smbios.system.product > QEMU Virtual Machine > root@freebsd:~ # sysctl kern.vm_guest > kern.vm_guest: generic > root@freebsd:~ # sysctl kern.hz > kern.hz: 100 Cool. Looks like those 3 types of context worked as expected. Does using Apple Virtualization in UTM allow running FreeBSD enough to see what FreeBSD gets for that type of usage context? (I do not expect Apple Virtualization to have text indicating QEMU, but I could be wrong. But not seeing QEMU might be enough to know it is Apple Virtualization?) === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
