Yocto Technical Team Minutes, Engineering Sync, for July 20, 2021


Trevor Woerner
 

Yocto Technical Team Minutes, Engineering Sync, for July 20, 2021
archive: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ly8nyhO14kDNnFcW2QskANXW3ZT7QwKC5wWVDg9dDH4/edit

== disclaimer ==
Best efforts are made to ensure the below is accurate and valid. However,
errors sometimes happen. If any errors or omissions are found, please feel
free to reply to this email with any corrections.

== attendees ==
Trevor Woerner
Stephen Jolley
Armin Kuster
Jan-Simon Möller
Joshua Watt
Steve Sakoman
Trevor Gamblin
Scott Murray
Randy MacLeod
Richard Purdie
Martin Jansa (JaMa)
Michael Halstead
Bruce Ashfiled
Tony Tascioglu
Ross Burton
Alexandre Belloni
Paul Barker
Denys Dmytriyenko

== project status ==
- -m2 to be built this week (after pzstd included in buildtools tarball)
- 3.3.2 (hardknott) to QA after -m2 build
- proposal to add lz4c, zstd, and pzstd as required host commands
- architectural discussion on a change to the override syntax
- prserv still waiting on python asyncio issues
- AB-INT issues around ptest
- simpler test cases still required for multiconfig to resolve issues

== discussion ==
RP: syntax changes. we’re limited by not knowing definitively what and
what isn’t an override. leads to lots of caching and extra resources.
it would help speed things up. there are issues around backwards
compatibility, but it shouldn’t be a problem. the new character was
illegal previously (no clash). so with the backwards compatibility solved
it should be clear sailing (famous last words)
ScottM: sgtm, i like the syntax
RP: “feels” right, and it helps massively inside bitbake. how old would we
have to go back
ScottM: dunfell
RP: so if we backport this to dunfell then AGL should be helped
ScottM + J-SM: yes. we’d have to wait for a bunch of BSPs to adopt too
ScottM: can we mix and match old and new syntax?
RP: yes
ScottM: then we should be okay. AGL will be a good test case
JPEW: mix and match now, then make it required in the future?
RP: discussion ongoing
TrevorW: we started discussions on override syntax at OEDEM 2015, glad to see
it coming in
RP: my instinct is to bring it in quickly rather than have a long overlap. it
is used a lot in image filesystem code, also in tune features, qemu. the
package code relies heavily on the override syntax (package data). the tsc
generally thinks we should move forward. how long to wait before moving
forward?
AlexB: not too long. definitely before next lts and a little before
RP: which means now is a good time
PaulB: great idea. how about -m2? before or after?
RP: wanted -m2 last week, need new buildtools tarball, tempted to do it before
-m2
PaulB: ship it! (lol)
JPEW: at this point we’re just talking about converting the metadata?
RP: yes.
RP: tempted to do it for -m2.
RP: steve?
SS: sounds good, good idea to backport
RP: see discussion on oe-architecture

RP: Ross is proposing a function for bitbake-utils (layer_path()) for a layers
path to be extracted. why not a bblayersdir variable. core has this, sort
of. but maybe other layers could use this too. if you start encoding
paths like this, they get into the signatures (sigs depend on locations)
so path has to be in hash whitelisting variable. but path ends up in
signature file (for debugging). maybe have “add layer” like “add
task” that takes care of this. patches are on mailing list. we could
drop bbcollections variable that would be nice to drop (historic, predates
layers). it’d be nice to simplify some of the variables used in bitbake.
we force the priority to 5 (for no reason)
JPEW: priority levels has always been confusing
RP: this could make this go away
Denys: and there’s recipe priority
RP: and preferred, etc…
JPEW: and recipe priority only holds inside a layer
RP: one of the big issues with python2 → python3 was this sort of thing
JPEW: this could be easily backwards compatible?
RP: yes
PaulB: sounds like the right direction. layer.conf has always been confusing
(copy this boilerplate and it’ll work, don’t ask how) moving this into
bitbake would make it easier for users
Ross: i like getting rid of layer priority since this is a cause of lots
of issues since it works one day then stops a while later (after
bblayers.conf changes)
RP: behind the scenes bitbake does ugly stuff expanding layer dirs etc. so
this would get rid of that ugly code
ScottM: also backported to dunfell?
RP: more nervous backporting something like this
JPEW: probably wouldn’t be able to backport forcing the priority
PaulB: it’d be nice to have a branch of a layer support dunfell, hardknott,
and master all at the same time (without changes), but it probably won’t
be too hard
JPEW: yes, we do that too, and we go back a lot further. it’s possible
RP: i don’t want to block Ross’s patch and i think this would be good

ScottM: read-only prserv. moving the syncio loop creation. ran oe-selftest a
couple times. i don’t think it’s helping, still seeing failures with
the patches (and not without). i’ll need to double-check to make sure
these aren’t intermittent issues. do we want this feature bad enough
that doing it without the unification of the async-rpc code with the hash
equivalency is required? could we push that out to next release and just
do more minor tweaks for read-only mode for this release?
RP: i’m now worried about hash-equiv server as well. we run one on the
server but i think there’s gremlins there
JPEW: ScottM ping me on it, i think it should work, i’d like to help
ScottM: yea, i think it should work too. i think there’s a race in the
shutdown code. with enough load i think we’re running into something.
but i think it’s in the shutdown and solvable. i’m pretty sure i can
run enough load locally to mimic the behaviour of the AB.
RP: when i originally worked on this and we scaled AB, i had to do crazy load
tests. AB finds these failures
ScottM: was seeing loadavg of 800-900 on my local machine. it looked like
bitbake had shutdown during the build at one point. so it seems to match
the AB failures
PaulB: sounds like the failures i was seeing
ScottM: unfortunately the server tests don’t ever see these. they have to be
run on the whole build with a loaded build machine. so i think we should
do some for -m2 and then work on the rest for future releases/builds
RP: i’m not up-to-date on the asyncio stuff, but i've analyzed lots of
failures with bitbake shutdowns so i think i can help too
PaulB: i’ve moved off, but i’m happy to review patches or help brainstorm

ScottM: would it be possible to do a build on the AB with the auto-start
hash-equiv to see how that goes?
RP: if we put something into helper then we could try that
ScottM: we would lose some performance
JPEW: it would be a “throw-away” build
ScottM: okay, i’d like to try it to see how that would work
RP: AlexB can you set that up?
AlexB: sure
ScottB: bbhashserv = auto
RP: okay, do that and let scott know which build it is that’s got that
setting

ScottM: elc/yps?
TrevorW: working on it. we’ll do something, most likely a copy of the last
one but probably 3-days

PaulB: anyone looked at Deny’s email? (adding 5.10 kernel to dunfell)
ScottM: we’d really like to do it for AGL
J-SM: many customers have already done it so it’d be nice to do it in one place
Denys: kernel has a new lts every year, and dunfell is over a year old. this
is something coming from YP members requests. thanks for reviews. the next
yocto lts would have the same issue
PaulB: reminds me of hardware enablement kernels from ubuntu, in other words,
seems common among linux distros with long-term lts releases that last
longer than 1 year (i.e. kernel lts time frames)
Randy: sounds like this is a good and requested thing. are there any
downsides? effects on userspace?
Denys: userspace would be 5.4 but kernel would be 5.10. if we switch userspace
to 5.10 then everything has to rebuild (toolchain, glibc, which leads to
everything rebuilding)
RP: i think the goal is to not change the toolchain. the impact shouldn’t be
on SS (libc-headers causes toolchain updates). thanks Denys for getting
the ball rolling
Denys: i’d like to move it away from github and bring it under
git.yoctoproject.org
PaulB: the repos on git.yp.org are organized by headings, so maybe have a
heading for dunfell mixin layers
RP: sounds like something the tsc should think about
Denys: anyone want to do a mixin layer for gcc? gcc10 for dunfell? (i.e. a
newer toolchain)
<crickets>
Randy: sounds like a “no”. what’s the motivation?
Denys: some vendors would like to stay on dunfell (less work than moving to
master) but also test and build against newer tools
PaulB: newer toolchains always generate new warnings, errors… which leads to
lots of patches required everywhere. lots of effort to update to a newer
toolchain
Denys: true. like with all the -fcommon stuff
Randy: so vendors would have to wait for next lts and/or work towards master
PaulB: if dunfell gets extended for another 2 years then a newer u-boot mixin
layer would be useful (and we might as well make that public). but only if
dunfell is extended
Denys: to be clear: my understanding is that all these individual updates
should be done with individual mixin layers, not all done in one layer?
PaulB: yes, kernel, u-boot, are relatively self-contained, so should be able
to do as separate mixin layers

SS: any process/timeline for making that decision (dunfell extended?)
RP: comes down to funding. we’ve asked the members, but they haven’t
decided yet. i’m advocating for it and would like to see it

Join yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org to automatically receive all group messages.