From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF65A04F9; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 18:45:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DFE01E53A; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 18:45:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2971E539 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 18:45:31 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1578591931; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=G8ChWpP4kQ8cklcs0rP09wmI2rxqI7aLqp08Y9LsKgo=; b=di4tSD8dsebuL9F3Do+5/MCTcax4tJufAS0yO6X+Xw659RV/6Tb6fCXrk/RXix6RidwitG Gq2qI2t+GRxMq2nv6un7YDBQYOeCrX9+2joQzB5RFsy3tikrdbAV0SdTIlGcMCLSFsW+qF 3MCu2Rf3t9PWiN+ZR74pDcumK4ILf6M= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-408-yYqSYaHUO8aZQsYCX-kuKg-1; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 12:45:30 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53B78593A1; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:45:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com (ovpn-124-121.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.124.121]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 864B786CBB; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 17:45:24 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Honnappa Nagarahalli Cc: Ruifeng Wang , "maicolgabriel\@hotmail.com" , "thomas\@monjalon.net" , "ferruh.yigit\@intel.com" , "arybchenko\@solarflare.com" , "dev\@dpdk.org" , "david.marchand\@redhat.com" , Gavin Hu , nd References: <20191218053902.193417-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> <20191223070833.144628-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> <20191223070833.144628-3-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 12:45:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Honnappa Nagarahalli's message of "Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:50:39 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-MC-Unique: yYqSYaHUO8aZQsYCX-kuKg-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] ci: add travis ci support for aarch64 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Honnappa Nagarahalli writes: > > >> > >> >> > >> > Add Travis compilation jobs for aarch64. gcc/clang compilations >> > >> > for static/shared libraries are added. >> > >> > >> > >> > Some limitations for current aarch64 Travis support: >> > >> > 1. Container is used. Huge page is not available due to security = reason. >> > >> > 2. Missing kernel header package in Xenial distribution. >> > >> > >> > >> > Solutions to address the limitations: >> > >> > 1. Not to add unit test for now. And run tests with no-huge in fu= ture. >> > >> > 2. Use Bionic distribution for all aarch64 jobs. >> > >> > >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang >> > >> > Reviewed-by: Gavin Hu >> > >> > --- >> > >> >> > >> Can't we achieve the same thing by setting >> > >> >> > >> arch: >> > >> - amd64 >> > >> - arm64 >> > >> >> > >> in the build matrix? Or will that also force the intel builds to >> > >> use the container infrastructure (in which case the no-huge support >> > >> needs to >> > be fixed)? >> > > >> > > No, container infrastructure will not be imposed to intel builds. >> > > AFAIN, Travis infrastructure for a specific CPU arch is provided as >> > > is, and there is no config option to control. >> > > The problem with just adding 'arch' in build matrix is that >> > > RUN_TESTS on arm64 is not supported by now (Travis limitation). >> > > 'env' with RUN_TESTS >> > will fail. >> > >> > Okay I see. >> > >> > >> >> > >> One thing I wonder, isn't is possible to use qemu-user to do the >> > >> amd64 unit tests? Then do we really need some changes to do the >> > >> native >> > build? >> > > >> > > Do you mean to use qemu-user to do unit tests for non-x86 arch? >> > >> > Yes. This has the advantage of giving users a way to also do the >> > multi-arch checks on their own systems (so a developer with just an >> > x86 could at least do some testing on arm or ppc). >> > >> Yes, users can do multi-arch checks *locally* by using qemu. >> This patch aims to enable *public* CI for aarch64. It has no sense to re= ly on >> specific arch while infrastructure supports multi arch. >>=20 >> > > Changes will be needed as well to enable qemu-user to do unit test. >> > > Since Travis support multi CPU arch, I think native build and test >> > > is simpler >> > and more natural. >> > >> > I agree, some script changes might be needed, but maybe not as many as >> > you fear (can't we use binfmt_misc infrastructure to do this with >> > qemu-user and then the actual 'execute' would work). >> > >> It is more like a tool for local validation, and should be another story= . >>=20 >> > >> Does it buy us anything *today* given the cost of the hugepage >> > restriction? >> > >> Will that ever be resolved (I didn't see so from the docs on travis= )? >> > > >> > > The hugepage issue has been reported to Travis. I think it will be >> > > resolved. But no set dates yet. >> > >> > Is there a plan for them to address? I guess probably not. So we >> > either need the ability for tests to run in the no-huge environment >> > (and detect that no hugepages are available to run the tests that >> > way), or we need the travis environment supporting hugepages. Is ther= e >> something I missed? >> > >> Yes, over half of quick tests can run in no-huge environment. > Plan is to enable the testing for whatever works today and work on > fixing the remaining test cases. Is this ok? Sounds good then. >