|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Yocto Gitlab CI
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.orzel@xxxxxxx> 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. > >> Regardless of what we chose, we need to keep in mind that the biggest >> advantage to the Yocto build/run is that >> it allows/should allow local users to perform basic testing for all the Xen >> supported architectures. This is because >> everything happens in one place with one command. > > That's right, but it should be possible to allow the Yocto containers to > also build and run correctly locally on x86, right? The arm/x86 tag in > test.yaml doesn't matter when running the containers locally anyway. ~Michal
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |