Re: [dpdk-dev] Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf

[Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>]

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