On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, Michal Orzel wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On 10/11/2022 01:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022, Michal Orzel wrote: > >> Hi Bertrand and Stefano, > >> > >> On 31/10/2022 16:00, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi Michal, > >>> > >>>> On 31 Oct 2022, at 14:39, Michal Orzel <michal.or...@amd.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Bertrand, > >>>> > >>>> On 31/10/2022 15:00, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> This patch series is a first attempt to check if we could use Yocto in > >>>>> gitlab ci to build and run xen on qemu for arm, arm64 and x86. > >>>>> > >>>>> The first patch is creating a container with all elements required to > >>>>> build Yocto, a checkout of the yocto layers required and an helper > >>>>> script to build and run xen on qemu with yocto. > >>>>> > >>>>> The second patch is creating containers with a first build of yocto done > >>>>> so that susbsequent build with those containers would only rebuild what > >>>>> was changed and take the rest from the cache. > >>>>> > >>>>> The third patch is adding a way to easily clean locally created > >>>>> containers. > >>>>> > >>>>> This is is mainly for discussion and sharing as there are still some > >>>>> issues/problem to solve: > >>>>> - building the qemu* containers can take several hours depending on the > >>>>> network bandwith and computing power of the machine where those are > >>>>> created > >>>> This is not really an issue as the build of the containers occurs on the > >>>> local > >>>> machines before pushing them to registry. Also, building the containers > >>>> will only be required for new Yocto releases. > >>>> > >>>>> - produced containers containing the cache have a size between 8 and > >>>>> 12GB depending on the architecture. We might need to store the build > >>>>> cache somewhere else to reduce the size. If we choose to have one > >>>>> single image, the needed size is around 20GB and we need up to 40GB > >>>>> during the build, which is why I splitted them. > >>>>> - during the build and run, we use a bit more then 20GB of disk which is > >>>>> over the allowed size in gitlab > >>>> As we could see during v2 testing, we do not have any space restrictions > >>>> on the Xen GitLab and I think we already decided to have the Yocto > >>>> integrated into our CI. > >>> > >>> Right, I should have modified this chapter to be coherent with your > >>> latest tests. > >>> Sorry for that. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I will do some testing and get back to you with results + review. > >> I did some testing and here are the results: > >> > >> In the current form this series will fail when running CI because the > >> Yocto containers > >> are based on "From ubuntu:22.04" (there is no platform prefix), which > >> means that the containers > >> are built for the host architecture (in my case and in 99% of the cases of > >> the local build it will > >> be x86). In Gitlab we have 2 runners (arm64 and x86_64). This means that > >> all the test jobs would need > >> to specify x86_64 as a tag when keeping the current behavior. > >> After I built all the containers on my x86 machine, I pushed them to > >> registry and the pipeline was successful: > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.com%2Fxen-project%2Fpeople%2Fmorzel%2Fxen-orzelmichal%2F-%2Fpipelines%2F686853939&data=05%7C01%7Cmichal.orzel%40amd.com%7C2449f063e67341c3b95a08dac2b112a5%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C638036363027707274%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EwTJrW2vuwQIugKc7mnzG9NNbsYLP6tw5UODzBMmPEE%3D&reserved=0 > > > > When I tested the previous version of this series I built the > > containers natively on ARM64, so that is also an option. > > > > > >> Here is the diff on patch no. 3 to make the series work (using x86 tag and > >> small improvement to include needs: []): > >> ``` > >> diff --git a/automation/gitlab-ci/test.yaml > >> b/automation/gitlab-ci/test.yaml > >> index 5c620fefce59..52cccec6f904 100644 > >> --- a/automation/gitlab-ci/test.yaml > >> +++ b/automation/gitlab-ci/test.yaml > >> @@ -65,6 +65,9 @@ > >> paths: > >> - 'logs/*' > >> when: always > >> + needs: [] > >> + tags: > >> + - x86_64 > >> > >> # Test jobs > >> build-each-commit-gcc: > >> @@ -206,19 +209,13 @@ yocto-qemuarm64: > >> extends: .yocto-test > >> variables: > >> YOCTO_BOARD: qemuarm64 > >> - tags: > >> - - arm64 > >> > >> yocto-qemuarm: > >> extends: .yocto-test > >> variables: > >> YOCTO_BOARD: qemuarm > >> - tags: > >> - - arm32 > >> > >> yocto-qemux86-64: > >> extends: .yocto-test > >> variables: > >> YOCTO_BOARD: qemux86-64 > >> - tags: > >> - - x86_64 > >> ``` > >> > >> Now, the logical way would be to build x86 yocto container for x86, arm64 > >> for arm64 and arm32 on arm64 or x86. > >> I tried building the container qemuarm64 specifying target arm64 on x86. > >> After 15h, only 70% of the Yocto build > >> was completed and there was an error with glibc (the local build of the > >> container for the host arch takes on my machine max 2h). > >> This enormous amount of time is due to the qemu docker emulation that > >> happens behind the scenes (I checked on 2 different machines). > >> > >> So we have 3 solutions: > >> 1) Build and run these containers for/on x86_64: > >> - local users can build the containers on local machines that are almost > >> always x86 based, in short period of time, > >> - "everyone" can build/push the containers once there is a new Yocto > >> release > >> - slightly slower CI build time > >> 2) Build and run these containers for specific architectures: > >> - almost no go for local users using x86 machine (unless using more than > >> 16 threads (which I used) and willing to wait 2 days for the build) > >> - faster CI build time (arm64 runner is faster than x86 one) > >> - someone with arm64 based machine (not that common) would have to build > >> and push the containers > >> 3) Try to use CI to build and push the containers to registry > >> - it could be possible but what about local users > > > > From a gitlab-ci perspective, given the runners we currently have, we > > have to go with option 2). We don't have enough resources available on > > the x86 runner to run the Yocto jobs on x86. > > > That is what I reckon too. Running the Yocto build/test on CI using x86 > runner will always be slower. > So, if we go with this solution, then the following is needed: > 1. Modify test jobs so that yocto-qemu{arm64/arm} uses arm64 tag to be taken > by arm64 runner and use tag x86_64 for yocto-qemux86-64. > 2. Come up with a solution to build the yocto containers automatically for > the above platforms + possibility to specify the platform for local users. > Right now, these containers are being always build for the host machine > platform, so without doing tricks like adding --platform or prefix to image > name, > one cannot build the Yocto containers that would be ready to be pushed to > registry. We need to have a clean solution without requiring user to do > tricks. > > The only drawback of this solution is that the person building the > yocto-qemu{arm64/arm} container and willing to push it to registry, > needs to have access to arm64 machine.
I am fine with this drawback for now. Due to resource constraints, we might want to avoid adding yocto-qemux86-64 (if yocto-qemux86-64 has to run on x86) for now, I worry it might choke the x86 ci-loop. Or we could add it but keep it disabled. We'll enable it when we get better x86 runners.
