> -----Original Message----- > From: Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech> > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 8:06 PM > To: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrha...@canonical.com>; Ruifeng Wang > <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > Cc: Jan Viktorin <vikto...@rehivetech.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Luca > Boccassi <bl...@debian.org>; Honnappa Nagarahalli > <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com> > Subject: RE: Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrha...@canonical.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 8:48 AM > > To: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > > Cc: Jan Viktorin <vikto...@rehivetech.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Luca > > Boccassi <bl...@debian.org>; Juraj Linkeš > > <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech>; Honnappa Nagarahalli > > <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com> > > Subject: Re: Probing the expected state/support of DPDK@armhf > > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 8:17 AM Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrha...@canonical.com> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 8:32 PM > > > > To: Jan Viktorin <vikto...@rehivetech.com>; Ruifeng Wang > > > > <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; dev <dev@dpdk.org> > > > > Cc: Luca Boccassi <bl...@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.chandrak...@globaledgesoft.com/ > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Christian Ehrhardt > > > > Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server > > > > Canonical Ltd > > > > > > > > -- > > Christian Ehrhardt > > Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server > > Canonical Ltd
