DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [dpdk-dev] Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf
@ 2021-11-08 12:32 Christian Ehrhardt
  2021-11-09  7:17 ` Ruifeng Wang
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Christian Ehrhardt @ 2021-11-08 12:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jan Viktorin, Ruifeng Wang, dev; +Cc: Luca Boccassi

Hi,
I wanted to ask about the current state of DPDK@armhf (not arm64, that
seems fine AFAICS).
Since there are too many arms today, I mean armhf as in [0].

What I see when building DPDK 21.11 is
2973 ../config/meson.build:364:1: ERROR: Problem encountered: Number
of CPU cores not specified.

Right now this seems to be broken the same everywhere - Suse [1],
fedora [2], Debian/Ubuntu [3]

I'm not asking for a fix for this particular issue (although I guess
people would be happy), but more about the general state of
DPDK@armhf.

Debian and Ubuntu used to build it on armhf as well, but over the
recent years I feel (no hard data) that usage there was next to none.

OTOH Thomas said that recently people cared about armv7 [4]

My suggestion would be to disable the build on armhf in Debian/Ubuntu
(+elsewhere?) until it reaches a more stable phase and real use-cases.
But maybe I missed some use-cases, therefore I wanted to reach out to
the mailing list to probe for more opinions on this.

Thanks for your thoughts on this in advance!

P.S. If it is meant to work and be supported, then we will need a fix for that

[0]: https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort
[1]: https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/openSUSE_Factory_ARM/armv7l/dpdk/_log
[2]: https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/Fedora_35/armv7l/dpdk/_log
[3]: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/567810935/buildlog_ubuntu-jammy-armhf.dpdk_21.11~rc1-1u~ppa1_BUILDING.txt.gz
[4]: https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210610111839.7481-1-s.chandrakant@globaledgesoft.com/

-- 
Christian Ehrhardt
Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf
  2021-11-08 12:32 [dpdk-dev] Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf Christian Ehrhardt
@ 2021-11-09  7:17 ` Ruifeng Wang
  2021-11-10  7:47   ` Christian Ehrhardt
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ruifeng Wang @ 2021-11-09  7:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christian Ehrhardt, Jan Viktorin, dev
  Cc: Luca Boccassi, Juraj Linkeš, Honnappa Nagarahalli, nd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 8:32 PM
> To: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>; Ruifeng Wang
> <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>
> Cc: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
> Subject: Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf
> 
> Hi,
> I wanted to ask about the current state of DPDK@armhf (not arm64, that
> seems fine AFAICS).
> Since there are too many arms today, I mean armhf as in [0].
I think armhf in question refers to armv7.

> 
> What I see when building DPDK 21.11 is
> 2973 ../config/meson.build:364:1: ERROR: Problem encountered: Number of
> CPU cores not specified.
> 
> Right now this seems to be broken the same everywhere - Suse [1], fedora
> [2], Debian/Ubuntu [3]
Looks like this happens with native build on armv7 machine. RTE_MAX_LCORE is not set for the build.

> 
> I'm not asking for a fix for this particular issue (although I guess people would
> be happy), but more about the general state of DPDK@armhf.
> 
> Debian and Ubuntu used to build it on armhf as well, but over the recent
> years I feel (no hard data) that usage there was next to none.
> 
> OTOH Thomas said that recently people cared about armv7 [4]
> 
> My suggestion would be to disable the build on armhf in Debian/Ubuntu
> (+elsewhere?) until it reaches a more stable phase and real use-cases.
> But maybe I missed some use-cases, therefore I wanted to reach out to the
> mailing list to probe for more opinions on this.
I'm not aware of amount of users that using DPDK on armv7. But [4] suggests that there is real use case.
I think the build on armhf does have value. It helps to maintain general status on armv7. That is one of
the reason why user [4] can enable armv7 cross compile smoothly.
I suggest to keep the build and fix the failure.

> 
> Thanks for your thoughts on this in advance!
> 
> P.S. If it is meant to work and be supported, then we will need a fix for that
Hi Juraj,
Can you have a look at the issue?

> 
> [0]: https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort
> [1]:
> https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/openSUSE_Facto
> ry_ARM/armv7l/dpdk/_log
> [2]:
> https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/Fedora_35/armv
> 7l/dpdk/_log
> [3]: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/567810935/buildlog_ubuntu-jammy-
> armhf.dpdk_21.11~rc1-1u~ppa1_BUILDING.txt.gz
> [4]: https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210610111839.7481-1-
> s.chandrakant@globaledgesoft.com/
> 
> --
> Christian Ehrhardt
> Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server
> Canonical Ltd

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-dev] Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf
  2021-11-09  7:17 ` Ruifeng Wang
@ 2021-11-10  7:47   ` Christian Ehrhardt
  2021-11-16 12:06     ` Juraj Linkeš
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Christian Ehrhardt @ 2021-11-10  7:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ruifeng Wang
  Cc: Jan Viktorin, dev, Luca Boccassi, Juraj Linkeš,
	Honnappa Nagarahalli, nd

On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:17 AM Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
> > Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 8:32 PM
> > To: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>; Ruifeng Wang
> > <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>
> > Cc: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
> > Subject: Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf
> >
> > Hi,
> > I wanted to ask about the current state of DPDK@armhf (not arm64, that
> > seems fine AFAICS).
> > Since there are too many arms today, I mean armhf as in [0].
> I think armhf in question refers to armv7.
>
> >
> > What I see when building DPDK 21.11 is
> > 2973 ../config/meson.build:364:1: ERROR: Problem encountered: Number of
> > CPU cores not specified.
> >
> > Right now this seems to be broken the same everywhere - Suse [1], fedora
> > [2], Debian/Ubuntu [3]
> Looks like this happens with native build on armv7 machine. RTE_MAX_LCORE is not set for the build.

Thanks for the hint,
just FYI using the newer -Dplatform=generic without specifying the
machine as we did in the past yields the same issue.
I understand that every custom built project needs it's little special
twist, but that (ask for the lowest common denominator) is exactly
what generic builds in Distributions will need.


> > I'm not asking for a fix for this particular issue (although I guess people would
> > be happy), but more about the general state of DPDK@armhf.
> >
> > Debian and Ubuntu used to build it on armhf as well, but over the recent
> > years I feel (no hard data) that usage there was next to none.
> >
> > OTOH Thomas said that recently people cared about armv7 [4]
> >
> > My suggestion would be to disable the build on armhf in Debian/Ubuntu
> > (+elsewhere?) until it reaches a more stable phase and real use-cases.
> > But maybe I missed some use-cases, therefore I wanted to reach out to the
> > mailing list to probe for more opinions on this.
> I'm not aware of amount of users that using DPDK on armv7. But [4] suggests that there is real use case.
> I think the build on armhf does have value. It helps to maintain general status on armv7. That is one of
> the reason why user [4] can enable armv7 cross compile smoothly.
> I suggest to keep the build and fix the failure.
>
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts on this in advance!
> >
> > P.S. If it is meant to work and be supported, then we will need a fix for that
> Hi Juraj,
> Can you have a look at the issue?
>
> >
> > [0]: https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort
> > [1]:
> > https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/openSUSE_Facto
> > ry_ARM/armv7l/dpdk/_log
> > [2]:
> > https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/Fedora_35/armv
> > 7l/dpdk/_log
> > [3]: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/567810935/buildlog_ubuntu-jammy-
> > armhf.dpdk_21.11~rc1-1u~ppa1_BUILDING.txt.gz
> > [4]: https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210610111839.7481-1-
> > s.chandrakant@globaledgesoft.com/
> >
> > --
> > Christian Ehrhardt
> > Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server
> > Canonical Ltd



-- 
Christian Ehrhardt
Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* RE: Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf
  2021-11-10  7:47   ` Christian Ehrhardt
@ 2021-11-16 12:06     ` Juraj Linkeš
  2021-11-17  6:44       ` Ruifeng Wang
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Juraj Linkeš @ 2021-11-16 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christian Ehrhardt, Ruifeng Wang
  Cc: Jan Viktorin, dev, Luca Boccassi, Honnappa Nagarahalli, nd



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 8:48 AM
> To: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> Cc: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Luca
> Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>; Juraj Linkeš <juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech>;
> Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf
> 
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:17 AM Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 8:32 PM
> > > To: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>; Ruifeng Wang
> > > <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>
> > > Cc: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
> > > Subject: Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I wanted to ask about the current state of DPDK@armhf (not arm64,
> > > that seems fine AFAICS).
> > > Since there are too many arms today, I mean armhf as in [0].
> > I think armhf in question refers to armv7.
> >
> > >
> > > What I see when building DPDK 21.11 is
> > > 2973 ../config/meson.build:364:1: ERROR: Problem encountered: Number
> > > of CPU cores not specified.
> > >
> > > Right now this seems to be broken the same everywhere - Suse [1],
> > > fedora [2], Debian/Ubuntu [3]
> > Looks like this happens with native build on armv7 machine. RTE_MAX_LCORE
> is not set for the build.
> 

What do we want to do with armv7 native build, Ruifeng? For aarch64, we detect which machine we're building on and we set everything accordingly, unless the generic build is enabled. Do we want to add support for just the generic build for armv7 (i.e. regardless of what's set in -Dplatform)? What values of RTE_MAX_LCORE and RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES make sense for an armv7 generic build?

> Thanks for the hint,
> just FYI using the newer -Dplatform=generic without specifying the machine as
> we did in the past yields the same issue.
> I understand that every custom built project needs it's little special twist, but
> that (ask for the lowest common denominator) is exactly what generic builds in
> Distributions will need.
> 
> 
> > > I'm not asking for a fix for this particular issue (although I guess
> > > people would be happy), but more about the general state of DPDK@armhf.
> > >
> > > Debian and Ubuntu used to build it on armhf as well, but over the
> > > recent years I feel (no hard data) that usage there was next to none.
> > >
> > > OTOH Thomas said that recently people cared about armv7 [4]
> > >
> > > My suggestion would be to disable the build on armhf in
> > > Debian/Ubuntu
> > > (+elsewhere?) until it reaches a more stable phase and real use-cases.
> > > But maybe I missed some use-cases, therefore I wanted to reach out
> > > to the mailing list to probe for more opinions on this.
> > I'm not aware of amount of users that using DPDK on armv7. But [4] suggests
> that there is real use case.
> > I think the build on armhf does have value. It helps to maintain
> > general status on armv7. That is one of the reason why user [4] can enable
> armv7 cross compile smoothly.
> > I suggest to keep the build and fix the failure.
> >

That patch actually uses the aarch64 generic config with armhf compiler, so it's not really an armv7 build. I'll need to weigh in on that one.

> > >
> > > Thanks for your thoughts on this in advance!
> > >
> > > P.S. If it is meant to work and be supported, then we will need a
> > > fix for that
> > Hi Juraj,
> > Can you have a look at the issue?
> >
> > >
> > > [0]: https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort
> > > [1]:
> > > https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/openSUSE_Fac
> > > to
> > > ry_ARM/armv7l/dpdk/_log
> > > [2]:
> > > https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/Fedora_35/ar
> > > mv
> > > 7l/dpdk/_log
> > > [3]: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/567810935/buildlog_ubuntu-jammy-
> > > armhf.dpdk_21.11~rc1-1u~ppa1_BUILDING.txt.gz
> > > [4]:
> > > https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210610111839.7481-1-
> > > s.chandrakant@globaledgesoft.com/
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christian Ehrhardt
> > > Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server
> > > Canonical Ltd
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Christian Ehrhardt
> Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server
> Canonical Ltd


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* RE: Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf
  2021-11-16 12:06     ` Juraj Linkeš
@ 2021-11-17  6:44       ` Ruifeng Wang
  2021-11-18 10:28         ` Juraj Linkeš
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ruifeng Wang @ 2021-11-17  6:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Juraj Linkeš, Christian Ehrhardt
  Cc: Jan Viktorin, dev, Luca Boccassi, Honnappa Nagarahalli, nd, nd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juraj Linkeš <juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 8:06 PM
> To: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>; Ruifeng Wang
> <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
> Cc: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Luca
> Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: RE: Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 8:48 AM
> > To: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>
> > Cc: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Luca
> > Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>; Juraj Linkeš
> > <juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech>; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> > Subject: Re: Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:17 AM Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 8:32 PM
> > > > To: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>; Ruifeng Wang
> > > > <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>
> > > > Cc: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>
> > > > Subject: Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I wanted to ask about the current state of DPDK@armhf (not arm64,
> > > > that seems fine AFAICS).
> > > > Since there are too many arms today, I mean armhf as in [0].
> > > I think armhf in question refers to armv7.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What I see when building DPDK 21.11 is
> > > > 2973 ../config/meson.build:364:1: ERROR: Problem encountered:
> > > > Number of CPU cores not specified.
> > > >
> > > > Right now this seems to be broken the same everywhere - Suse [1],
> > > > fedora [2], Debian/Ubuntu [3]
> > > Looks like this happens with native build on armv7 machine.
> > > RTE_MAX_LCORE
> > is not set for the build.
> >
> 
> What do we want to do with armv7 native build, Ruifeng? For aarch64, we
> detect which machine we're building on and we set everything accordingly,
> unless the generic build is enabled. Do we want to add support for just the
> generic build for armv7 (i.e. regardless of what's set in -Dplatform)? What
> values of RTE_MAX_LCORE and RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES make sense for an
> armv7 generic build?

Yes, support just the generic build for armv7.
I think we should have RTE_MAX_LCORE=128, RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES=8 for the build.
These values are consistent with values used in stable branch where armv7 still have Make build support.

> 
> > Thanks for the hint,
> > just FYI using the newer -Dplatform=generic without specifying the
> > machine as we did in the past yields the same issue.
> > I understand that every custom built project needs it's little special
> > twist, but that (ask for the lowest common denominator) is exactly
> > what generic builds in Distributions will need.
> >
> >
> > > > I'm not asking for a fix for this particular issue (although I
> > > > guess people would be happy), but more about the general state of
> DPDK@armhf.
> > > >
> > > > Debian and Ubuntu used to build it on armhf as well, but over the
> > > > recent years I feel (no hard data) that usage there was next to none.
> > > >
> > > > OTOH Thomas said that recently people cared about armv7 [4]
> > > >
> > > > My suggestion would be to disable the build on armhf in
> > > > Debian/Ubuntu
> > > > (+elsewhere?) until it reaches a more stable phase and real use-cases.
> > > > But maybe I missed some use-cases, therefore I wanted to reach out
> > > > to the mailing list to probe for more opinions on this.
> > > I'm not aware of amount of users that using DPDK on armv7. But [4]
> > > suggests
> > that there is real use case.
> > > I think the build on armhf does have value. It helps to maintain
> > > general status on armv7. That is one of the reason why user [4] can
> > > enable
> > armv7 cross compile smoothly.
> > > I suggest to keep the build and fix the failure.
> > >
> 
> That patch actually uses the aarch64 generic config with armhf compiler, so
> it's not really an armv7 build. I'll need to weigh in on that one.

OK. Thanks.
> 
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your thoughts on this in advance!
> > > >
> > > > P.S. If it is meant to work and be supported, then we will need a
> > > > fix for that
> > > Hi Juraj,
> > > Can you have a look at the issue?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [0]: https://wiki.debian.org/ArmHardFloatPort
> > > > [1]:
> > > >
> https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/openSUSE_F
> > > > ac
> > > > to
> > > > ry_ARM/armv7l/dpdk/_log
> > > > [2]:
> > > > https://build.opensuse.org/public/build/home:bluca:dpdk/Fedora_35/
> > > > ar
> > > > mv
> > > > 7l/dpdk/_log
> > > > [3]:
> > > > https://launchpadlibrarian.net/567810935/buildlog_ubuntu-jammy-
> > > > armhf.dpdk_21.11~rc1-1u~ppa1_BUILDING.txt.gz
> > > > [4]:
> > > > https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210610111839.7481-1-
> > > > s.chandrakant@globaledgesoft.com/
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christian Ehrhardt
> > > > Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server
> > > > Canonical Ltd
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christian Ehrhardt
> > Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server
> > Canonical Ltd


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* RE: Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf
  2021-11-17  6:44       ` Ruifeng Wang
@ 2021-11-18 10:28         ` Juraj Linkeš
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Juraj Linkeš @ 2021-11-18 10:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ruifeng Wang, Christian Ehrhardt
  Cc: Jan Viktorin, dev, Luca Boccassi, Honnappa Nagarahalli, nd, nd

> > > > > What I see when building DPDK 21.11 is
> > > > > 2973 ../config/meson.build:364:1: ERROR: Problem encountered:
> > > > > Number of CPU cores not specified.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right now this seems to be broken the same everywhere - Suse
> > > > > [1], fedora [2], Debian/Ubuntu [3]
> > > > Looks like this happens with native build on armv7 machine.
> > > > RTE_MAX_LCORE
> > > is not set for the build.
> > >
> >
> > What do we want to do with armv7 native build, Ruifeng? For aarch64,
> > we detect which machine we're building on and we set everything
> > accordingly, unless the generic build is enabled. Do we want to add
> > support for just the generic build for armv7 (i.e. regardless of
> > what's set in -Dplatform)? What values of RTE_MAX_LCORE and
> > RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES make sense for an
> > armv7 generic build?
> 
> Yes, support just the generic build for armv7.
> I think we should have RTE_MAX_LCORE=128, RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES=8 for
> the build.
> These values are consistent with values used in stable branch where armv7 still
> have Make build support.

Ok, I'll submit a patch.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-11-18 10:28 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-11-08 12:32 [dpdk-dev] Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf Christian Ehrhardt
2021-11-09  7:17 ` Ruifeng Wang
2021-11-10  7:47   ` Christian Ehrhardt
2021-11-16 12:06     ` Juraj Linkeš
2021-11-17  6:44       ` Ruifeng Wang
2021-11-18 10:28         ` Juraj Linkeš

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).