From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15185AB7 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:39:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2015 05:36:13 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,862,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="447527397" Received: from irsmsx154.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.96]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2015 05:25:38 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.64]) by IRSMSX154.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.12.111]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:39:28 +0000 From: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" To: Neil Horman , Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] Improve build process Thread-Index: AQHQO9csAhbRLFHQkk+N8RLUPQ4JH5zXTHuAgAACWfCAADHOgIAA7Bog Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:39:28 +0000 Message-ID: <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F453D7@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1422544811-26385-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> <20150129163859.GE1999@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <91383E96CE459D47BCE92EFBF5CE73B004F43D9B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <20150129194539.GG1999@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: <20150129194539.GG1999@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] Improve build process X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:39:39 -0000 > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 7:46 PM > To: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] Improve build process >=20 > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 05:04:20PM +0000, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote: > > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:39 PM > > > To: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] Improve build process > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:20:03PM +0000, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy > wrote: > > > > This patch series improves the DPDK build system mostly for shared > > > > libraries (and a few nits for static libraries) with the following = goals: > > > > - Create a library containing core DPDK libraries (librte_eal, > > > > librte_malloc, librte_mempool, librte_mbuf and librte_ring). > > > > The idea of core libraries is to group those libraries that are > > > > always required (and have interdependencies) for any DPDK > application. > > > > - Remove config option to build a combined library. > > > > - For shared libraries, explicitly link against dependant > > > > libraries (adding entries to DT_NEEDED). > > > > - Update app linking flags for static/shared DPDK libs. > > > > > > > > Sergio Gonzalez Monroy (8): > > > > mk: remove combined library and related options > > > > core: create new librte_core > > > > mk: new corelib makefile > > > > lib: update DEPDIRS variable > > > > lib: set LDLIBS for each library > > > > mk: use LDLIBS when linking shared libraries > > > > mk: update LDLIBS for app building > > > > mk: add -lpthread to linuxapp EXECENV_LDLIBS > > > > > > > > config/common_bsdapp | 6 -- > > > > config/common_linuxapp | 6 -- > > > > config/defconfig_ppc_64-power8-linuxapp-gcc | 2 - > > > > lib/Makefile | 1 - > > > > lib/librte_acl/Makefile | 5 +- > > > > lib/librte_cfgfile/Makefile | 4 +- > > > > lib/librte_cmdline/Makefile | 6 +- > > > > lib/librte_core/Makefile | 45 +++++++++++++ > > > > lib/librte_distributor/Makefile | 5 +- > > > > lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/Makefile | 3 +- > > > > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile | 3 +- > > > > lib/librte_ether/Makefile | 4 +- > > > > lib/librte_hash/Makefile | 4 +- > > > > lib/librte_ip_frag/Makefile | 6 +- > > > > lib/librte_ivshmem/Makefile | 4 +- > > > > lib/librte_kni/Makefile | 6 +- > > > > lib/librte_kvargs/Makefile | 6 +- > > > > lib/librte_lpm/Makefile | 6 +- > > > > lib/librte_malloc/Makefile | 2 +- > > > > lib/librte_mbuf/Makefile | 2 +- > > > > lib/librte_mempool/Makefile | 2 +- > > > > lib/librte_meter/Makefile | 4 +- > > > > lib/librte_pipeline/Makefile | 3 + > > > > lib/librte_pmd_af_packet/Makefile | 5 +- > > > > lib/librte_pmd_bond/Makefile | 7 +- > > > > lib/librte_pmd_e1000/Makefile | 8 ++- > > > > lib/librte_pmd_enic/Makefile | 8 ++- > > > > lib/librte_pmd_i40e/Makefile | 8 ++- > > > > lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/Makefile | 8 ++- > > > > lib/librte_pmd_pcap/Makefile | 5 +- > > > > lib/librte_pmd_ring/Makefile | 6 +- > > > > lib/librte_pmd_virtio/Makefile | 7 +- > > > > lib/librte_pmd_vmxnet3/Makefile | 8 ++- > > > > lib/librte_pmd_xenvirt/Makefile | 8 ++- > > > > lib/librte_port/Makefile | 8 +-- > > > > lib/librte_power/Makefile | 4 +- > > > > lib/librte_ring/Makefile | 2 +- > > > > lib/librte_sched/Makefile | 7 +- > > > > lib/librte_table/Makefile | 8 +-- > > > > lib/librte_timer/Makefile | 6 +- > > > > lib/librte_vhost/Makefile | 9 +-- > > > > mk/exec-env/linuxapp/rte.vars.mk | 2 + > > > > mk/rte.app.mk | 53 ++++----------- > > > > mk/rte.corelib.mk | 84 ++++++++++++++++= +++++++ > > > > mk/rte.lib.mk | 49 +++----------- > > > > mk/rte.sdkbuild.mk | 3 - > > > > mk/rte.sharelib.mk | 101 ----------------= ------------ > > > > mk/rte.vars.mk | 9 --- > > > > 48 files changed, 276 insertions(+), 282 deletions(-) create > > > > mode > > > > 100644 lib/librte_core/Makefile create mode 100644 > > > > mk/rte.corelib.mk delete mode 100644 mk/rte.sharelib.mk > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 1.9.3 > > > > > > > > > > > Something occured to me thinking about this patch set. I noticed > > > recently that different rules are used to build the shared combined > > > lib from the individual shared objects. The implication here is > > > that linker options specified in individual make files (like the > > > LIBABIVER and EXPORT_MAP options in my ABI versioning script) get > > > ignored, which is bad. Any other file specific linker options (like > > > _LDFLAGS specified in individual library makefiles are getting > dropped for the combined lib. > > > > > > It seems like it would be better if the combined libs were > > > manufactured as linker scripts themselves (textfiles that used > > > linker directives to include individual libraries under the covers (s= ee > /lib64/libc.so for an example). > > > > > > The disadvantage of such an approach are fairly minimal. With such > > > a combined library, you still need to install individual libraries, > > > but for applications that wish to link and run against a single dpdk > > > library will still work just as they currently do, you can link to ju= st a single > library. > > > > > > The advantage is clear however. By following a linker script > > > aproach, objects build as separate libraries are built exactly the > > > same way, using the same rules with the same options. It reduces > > > the dpdk build environment size and complexity, and reduces the > > > opportunity for bugs to creep in from forgetting to add build > > > options to multiple locations. It also provides a more granular > > > approach for grouping files. Creating a dpdk core library becomes a > > > matter of creating a one line linker script named libdpdk_core.so, ra= ther > than re- arraning sections of the build system. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > Neil > > > > > Hi Neil, > > > > I think that is a very interesting approach. > > I have tried to do something similar in this patch by removing > > rte.sharelib.mk and just having rte.lib.mk to do the linking, leaving > > as you suggest a single file to modify anything related to building lib= s. > > > > I do think however that your proposal is an improvement over the curren= t > patch. > > > > So basically we want: > > - get rid of rte.corelib.mk > > - generate librte_core.so linker script grouping core libs > > - we do not modify DEPDIR variables > > - when setting LDLIBS to each lib, we do specify -lrte_core, right? > > > Exactly, and librte_core.so is really just a text file containing the fol= lowing line > : > INPUT(-lrte_malloc -lrte_mbuf -lrte_eal ....) >=20 > Adding in whatever libraries you want librte_core to consist of. Truthfu= lly, > you could almost get rid of the COMBINE_LIBS option entirely, and just > create this file statically if you wanted to (not sure thats the best app= roach, > but its definately do-able). >=20 Hi Neil, Actually, the first patch series does get rid of COMBINE_LIBS entirely. So as I was looking into this, by using this approach we do not resolve the= interdependencies issue of the core libraries. We would effectively leave all core libraries (or at least EAL) without pro= per DT_NEEDED entries. Thoughts? Regards, Sergio > Regards > Neil >=20