On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 11:18:22 +0100 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:44:01AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:31 AM Ilya Maximets > > <[1]i.maxim...@samsung.com> wrote: > > > > On 11.06.2019 11:45, David Marchand wrote: > > > I noticed that OVS CI [1] patches the dpdk sources to force some > > inlining parameters and get kni and igb_uio to build fine. > > > > > > Looking at it in dpdk, meson support dropped this. > > > In the makefiles, I can't find a reason in the git history (we go > > back to 1.3.0rX version). > > > > > > [dmarchan@dmarchan dpdk]$ git grep max-inline-insns-single > > > kernel/linux/igb_uio/Makefile:MODULE_CFLAGS += -I$(SRCDIR) --param > > max-inline-insns-single=100 > > > kernel/linux/kni/Makefile:MODULE_CFLAGS += -I$(SRCDIR) --param > > max-inline-insns-single=50 > > > [dmarchan@dmarchan dpdk]$ git blame origin/master -- > > kernel/linux/igb_uio/Makefile |grep max-inline-insns-single > > > 13dc56a6 lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/igb_uio/Makefile (Intel > > 2012-12-20 00:00:00 +0100 15) MODULE_CFLAGS += -I$(SRCDIR) --param > > max-inline-insns-single=100 > > > [dmarchan@dmarchan dpdk]$ git blame origin/master -- > > kernel/linux/kni/Makefile |grep max-inline-insns-single > > > 3fc5ca2f lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/Makefile (Intel > > 2012-12-20 00:00:00 +0100 14) MODULE_CFLAGS += -I$(SRCDIR) --param > > max-inline-insns-single=50 > > > > > > Is there a valid reason to keep this? > > > 1: > > [2]https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/master/.travis/linux-buil > > d.sh#L81 > > <[3]https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=b7de159c45b1fa79.b7df9ed3-c48 > > 06461f28ecaf5&u=https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/master/.trav > > is/linux-build.sh#L81> > > Hi, David. > > I don't know the reason for these in OVS travis config, But we don't > > need to know them, actually. I have a patch to drop all the kernel > > related stuff from the DPDK build in OVS Travis checks, just didn't > > send it yet. Will send soon, probably. > > > > I had this in mind since we don't need those kmods in the CI. > > Thanks Ilya. > > The question on dpdk side remains open :-). > > -- > > David Marchand > > I know that previously we did have issues with the modules not compiling > due to errors about maximum levels of inlines. Whether that was because of > the compiler, or the kernel makefiles at the time, I'm not sure. The kmods > seem to build fine for me now without the parameters, and the fact that > there has never been a problem reported with building using meson either, > probably indicates that the extra compiler flags can be dropped. > > /Bruce I really doubt forcing inlining makes any difference to the performance.
