[Xenomai] ipipe for 4.14 x86?

[Xenomai] ipipe for 4.14 x86?

[Richard Weinberger]

Hi!

Are there plans to have an x86 ipipe for kernel 4.14?
If there is something missing or needs testing I'm all open to help!

-- 
Thanks,
//richard

Re: [Xenomai] ipipe for 4.14 x86?

[Jan Kiszka]

On 17.09.18 15:39, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Are there plans to have an x86 ipipe for kernel 4.14?
> If there is something missing or needs testing I'm all open to help!
> 

Henning and Philippe are on this, and there is progress as Henning just reported 
today to me. Maybe just a matter of days, and then we indeed need intensive 
testing by the community!

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

Re: [Xenomai] ipipe for 4.14 x86?

[Richard Weinberger]

Jan,

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 8:10 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
>
> On 17.09.18 15:39, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Are there plans to have an x86 ipipe for kernel 4.14?
> > If there is something missing or needs testing I'm all open to help!
> >
>
> Henning and Philippe are on this, and there is progress as Henning just reported
> today to me. Maybe just a matter of days, and then we indeed need intensive
> testing by the community!

Is this repo/branch the right one when I want to give ipipe x86 a try?
Maybe I can help fixing issues too!
https://gitlab.denx.de/Xenomai/ipipe-x86/tree/wip/4.14-split

-- 
Thanks,
//richard

Re: [Xenomai] ipipe for 4.14 x86?

[Jan Kiszka]

On 18.09.18 10:52, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Jan,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 8:10 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 17.09.18 15:39, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Are there plans to have an x86 ipipe for kernel 4.14?
>>> If there is something missing or needs testing I'm all open to help!
>>>
>>
>> Henning and Philippe are on this, and there is progress as Henning just reported
>> today to me. Maybe just a matter of days, and then we indeed need intensive
>> testing by the community!
> 
> Is this repo/branch the right one when I want to give ipipe x86 a try?
> Maybe I can help fixing issues too!
> https://gitlab.denx.de/Xenomai/ipipe-x86/tree/wip/4.14-split
> 

Nope, Henning has the only (widely) working integration ATM. Henning, is it 
pushed somewhere?

I've merged the Xenomai side for that to next yesterday.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

Re: [Xenomai] ipipe for 4.14 x86?

[Henning Schild]

Am Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:52:05 +0200
schrieb Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>:

> Jan,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 8:10 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 17.09.18 15:39, Richard Weinberger wrote:  
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Are there plans to have an x86 ipipe for kernel 4.14?
> > > If there is something missing or needs testing I'm all open to
> > > help! 
> >
> > Henning and Philippe are on this, and there is progress as Henning
> > just reported today to me. Maybe just a matter of days, and then we
> > indeed need intensive testing by the community!  
> 
> Is this repo/branch the right one when I want to give ipipe x86 a try?
> Maybe I can help fixing issues too!
> https://gitlab.denx.de/Xenomai/ipipe-x86/tree/wip/4.14-split
> 

This one contains a few more fixes.

https://gitlab.denx.de/Xenomai/ipipe-x86/tree/henning/wip/4.14-split

Both are mainly tested under KVM. The 16 core Xeon i am currently
testing on runs into some timer init issues and gets stuck at boot.

Feedback welcome!

Henning

Re: [Xenomai] ipipe for 4.14 x86?

[Richard Weinberger]

Am Dienstag, 18. September 2018, 16:49:32 CEST schrieb Henning Schild:
> > Is this repo/branch the right one when I want to give ipipe x86 a try?
> > Maybe I can help fixing issues too!
> > https://gitlab.denx.de/Xenomai/ipipe-x86/tree/wip/4.14-split
> > 
> 
> This one contains a few more fixes.
> 
> https://gitlab.denx.de/Xenomai/ipipe-x86/tree/henning/wip/4.14-split
> 
> Both are mainly tested under KVM. The 16 core Xeon i am currently
> testing on runs into some timer init issues and gets stuck at boot.
> 
> Feedback welcome!

Hmm, that failed a way earlier than expected.

  AS      arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso32/system_call.o
arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c: In function ‘__switch_to’:
arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:238:14: error: implicit declaration of function ‘ipipe_get_domain_slope_hook’; did you mean ‘ipipe_test_and_stall_root’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  int slope = ipipe_get_domain_slope_hook(prev_p, next_p);
              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              ipipe_test_and_stall_root
arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:242:36: error: ‘slot’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘slope’?
  switch_fpu_prepare(prev_fpu, cpu, slot);
                                    ^~~~
                                    slope
arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:242:36: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:242:2: error: too many arguments to function ‘switch_fpu_prepare’
  switch_fpu_prepare(prev_fpu, cpu, slot);
  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:45:0:
./arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h:529:1: note: declared here
 switch_fpu_prepare(struct fpu *old_fpu, int cpu)
 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:303:2: error: too many arguments to function ‘switch_fpu_finish’
  switch_fpu_finish(next_fpu, cpu, slope);
  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:45:0:
./arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h:551:20: note: declared here
 static inline void switch_fpu_finish(struct fpu *new_fpu, int cpu)
                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors

Looks like some ia32 bits are missing.

Thanks,
//richard

Re: [Xenomai] ipipe for 4.14 x86?

[Jan Kiszka]

On 19.09.18 12:19, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 18. September 2018, 16:49:32 CEST schrieb Henning Schild:
>>> Is this repo/branch the right one when I want to give ipipe x86 a try?
>>> Maybe I can help fixing issues too!
>>> https://gitlab.denx.de/Xenomai/ipipe-x86/tree/wip/4.14-split
>>>
>>
>> This one contains a few more fixes.
>>
>> https://gitlab.denx.de/Xenomai/ipipe-x86/tree/henning/wip/4.14-split
>>
>> Both are mainly tested under KVM. The 16 core Xeon i am currently
>> testing on runs into some timer init issues and gets stuck at boot.
>>
>> Feedback welcome!
> 
> Hmm, that failed a way earlier than expected.
> 
>    AS      arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso32/system_call.o
> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c: In function ‘__switch_to’:
> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:238:14: error: implicit declaration of function ‘ipipe_get_domain_slope_hook’; did you mean ‘ipipe_test_and_stall_root’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>    int slope = ipipe_get_domain_slope_hook(prev_p, next_p);
>                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                ipipe_test_and_stall_root
> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:242:36: error: ‘slot’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘slope’?
>    switch_fpu_prepare(prev_fpu, cpu, slot);
>                                      ^~~~
>                                      slope
> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:242:36: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:242:2: error: too many arguments to function ‘switch_fpu_prepare’
>    switch_fpu_prepare(prev_fpu, cpu, slot);
>    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In file included from arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:45:0:
> ./arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h:529:1: note: declared here
>   switch_fpu_prepare(struct fpu *old_fpu, int cpu)
>   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:303:2: error: too many arguments to function ‘switch_fpu_finish’
>    switch_fpu_finish(next_fpu, cpu, slope);
>    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In file included from arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:45:0:
> ./arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h:551:20: note: declared here
>   static inline void switch_fpu_finish(struct fpu *new_fpu, int cpu)
>                      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> 
> Looks like some ia32 bits are missing.

Yeah, 32-bit is untested. We no longer have any Xenomai-targets with 32-bit x86 
kernels (there is less and less hardware requiring that), so it is not the 
primary priority. If you have a case, contributions - including tests - for that 
would be helpful to prolong the live of this variant.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

Re: [Xenomai] ipipe for 4.14 x86?

[Richard Weinberger]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:08 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
>
> On 19.09.18 12:19, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 18. September 2018, 16:49:32 CEST schrieb Henning Schild:
> >>> Is this repo/branch the right one when I want to give ipipe x86 a try?
> >>> Maybe I can help fixing issues too!
> >>> https://gitlab.denx.de/Xenomai/ipipe-x86/tree/wip/4.14-split
> >>>
> >>
> >> This one contains a few more fixes.
> >>
> >> https://gitlab.denx.de/Xenomai/ipipe-x86/tree/henning/wip/4.14-split
> >>
> >> Both are mainly tested under KVM. The 16 core Xeon i am currently
> >> testing on runs into some timer init issues and gets stuck at boot.
> >>
> >> Feedback welcome!
> >
> > Hmm, that failed a way earlier than expected.
> >
> >    AS      arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso32/system_call.o
> > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c: In function ‘__switch_to’:
> > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:238:14: error: implicit declaration of function ‘ipipe_get_domain_slope_hook’; did you mean ‘ipipe_test_and_stall_root’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >    int slope = ipipe_get_domain_slope_hook(prev_p, next_p);
> >                ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >                ipipe_test_and_stall_root
> > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:242:36: error: ‘slot’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘slope’?
> >    switch_fpu_prepare(prev_fpu, cpu, slot);
> >                                      ^~~~
> >                                      slope
> > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:242:36: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:242:2: error: too many arguments to function ‘switch_fpu_prepare’
> >    switch_fpu_prepare(prev_fpu, cpu, slot);
> >    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > In file included from arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:45:0:
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h:529:1: note: declared here
> >   switch_fpu_prepare(struct fpu *old_fpu, int cpu)
> >   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:303:2: error: too many arguments to function ‘switch_fpu_finish’
> >    switch_fpu_finish(next_fpu, cpu, slope);
> >    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > In file included from arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:45:0:
> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h:551:20: note: declared here
> >   static inline void switch_fpu_finish(struct fpu *new_fpu, int cpu)
> >                      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> >
> > Looks like some ia32 bits are missing.
>
> Yeah, 32-bit is untested. We no longer have any Xenomai-targets with 32-bit x86
> kernels (there is less and less hardware requiring that), so it is not the
> primary priority. If you have a case, contributions - including tests - for that
> would be helpful to prolong the live of this variant.

Thanks for this valuable insight. Let me check whether we can directly
jump to a x86_64 kernel.
Being the only 32-bit x86 user scares me a little. ;-)

-- 
Thanks,
//richard

Re: [Xenomai] ipipe for 4.14 x86?

[Jan Kiszka]

On 19.09.18 14:17, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:08 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 19.09.18 12:19, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, 18. September 2018, 16:49:32 CEST schrieb Henning Schild:
>>>>> Is this repo/branch the right one when I want to give ipipe x86 a try?
>>>>> Maybe I can help fixing issues too!
>>>>> https://gitlab.denx.de/Xenomai/ipipe-x86/tree/wip/4.14-split
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This one contains a few more fixes.
>>>>
>>>> https://gitlab.denx.de/Xenomai/ipipe-x86/tree/henning/wip/4.14-split
>>>>
>>>> Both are mainly tested under KVM. The 16 core Xeon i am currently
>>>> testing on runs into some timer init issues and gets stuck at boot.
>>>>
>>>> Feedback welcome!
>>>
>>> Hmm, that failed a way earlier than expected.
>>>
>>>     AS      arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso32/system_call.o
>>> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c: In function ‘__switch_to’:
>>> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:238:14: error: implicit declaration of function ‘ipipe_get_domain_slope_hook’; did you mean ‘ipipe_test_and_stall_root’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>     int slope = ipipe_get_domain_slope_hook(prev_p, next_p);
>>>                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>                 ipipe_test_and_stall_root
>>> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:242:36: error: ‘slot’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘slope’?
>>>     switch_fpu_prepare(prev_fpu, cpu, slot);
>>>                                       ^~~~
>>>                                       slope
>>> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:242:36: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
>>> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:242:2: error: too many arguments to function ‘switch_fpu_prepare’
>>>     switch_fpu_prepare(prev_fpu, cpu, slot);
>>>     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> In file included from arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:45:0:
>>> ./arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h:529:1: note: declared here
>>>    switch_fpu_prepare(struct fpu *old_fpu, int cpu)
>>>    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:303:2: error: too many arguments to function ‘switch_fpu_finish’
>>>     switch_fpu_finish(next_fpu, cpu, slope);
>>>     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> In file included from arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c:45:0:
>>> ./arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h:551:20: note: declared here
>>>    static inline void switch_fpu_finish(struct fpu *new_fpu, int cpu)
>>>                       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
>>>
>>> Looks like some ia32 bits are missing.
>>
>> Yeah, 32-bit is untested. We no longer have any Xenomai-targets with 32-bit x86
>> kernels (there is less and less hardware requiring that), so it is not the
>> primary priority. If you have a case, contributions - including tests - for that
>> would be helpful to prolong the live of this variant.
> 
> Thanks for this valuable insight. Let me check whether we can directly
> jump to a x86_64 kernel.
> Being the only 32-bit x86 user scares me a little. ;-)

You may not be the only one at this point already, but there is a risk to become 
that.

If the CPU supports ia32e, it's generally recommended to move at least the 
kernel to 64-bit mode, potentially keeping user space in 32-bit. That is support 
in Xenomai (we asked for that and are using this interface), though it can be 
slightly slower than pure 64 or 32-bit.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

Re: [Xenomai] ipipe for 4.14 x86?

[Henning Schild]

Am Mon, 17 Sep 2018 15:39:08 +0200
schrieb Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>:

> Hi!
> 
> Are there plans to have an x86 ipipe for kernel 4.14?
> If there is something missing or needs testing I'm all open to help!
> 

I have pushed the latest version from Philippe to "wip/4.14-split". So 
everyone interested in the topic should maybe use that.

https://gitlab.denx.de/Xenomai/ipipe-x86/tree/wip/4.14-split

This is what Philippe sent as "[I-PIPE][PATCH 00/32] 4.14.71/x86_64
port (split series)".

That was a force push the branches "henning/wip/*" are gone now.

Henning

[Xenomai] ipipe for 4.14 x86?

[Alec Ari]

This message is meant to be part of the preexisting thread, "ipipe for 4.14 x86?"

I see that 4.14 development is in a branch labeled "split." I read through this already:
https://www.xenomai.org/pipermail/xenomai/2018-September/039458.html

So the base functionality of IPIPE is still the same, but with the split series, this makes commits and code changes easier to dissect?

When 4.14 support reaches this page:
https://xenomai.org/downloads/ipipe/v4.x/x86/

How different will the final patch be to the rest of the patches? Is the structure for the most part the same and follow the same pattern as the other patches, or will a patch derived from "split" have other changes in the final patch? Are all the changes in the split series purely cosmetic compared to the other IPIPE patches? Are there even any changes to the kernel compared to the other IPIPE patches, or is this purely breaking up commits? I'm a bit confused as to how this affects the final ipipe-core patches as that is what I use for a baseline, not the IPIPE git repos.

Thank you!

Alec

Re: [Xenomai] ipipe for 4.14 x86?

[Henning Schild]

Am Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:38:22 +0000
schrieb Alec Ari <neotheuser@ymail.com>:

> This message is meant to be part of the preexisting thread, "ipipe
> for 4.14 x86?"
> 
> I see that 4.14 development is in a branch labeled "split." I read
> through this already:
> https://www.xenomai.org/pipermail/xenomai/2018-September/039458.html
> 
> So the base functionality of IPIPE is still the same, but with the
> split series, this makes commits and code changes easier to dissect?
> 
> When 4.14 support reaches this page:
> https://xenomai.org/downloads/ipipe/v4.x/x86/
> 
> How different will the final patch be to the rest of the patches? Is
> the structure for the most part the same and follow the same pattern
> as the other patches, or will a patch derived from "split" have other
> changes in the final patch? Are all the changes in the split series
> purely cosmetic compared to the other IPIPE patches? Are there even
> any changes to the kernel compared to the other IPIPE patches, or is
> this purely breaking up commits? I'm a bit confused as to how this
> affects the final ipipe-core patches as that is what I use for a
> baseline, not the IPIPE git repos.

This is a change in how the "patch" is structured internally for
developers only. If you look into the git history we always had more
than one patch being part of the "patch", starting from 4.14 the
granularity will be increased.

You will still get one patch to apply to your random vendor kernel that
roughly matches ;).

Henning

> Thank you!
> 
> Alec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xenomai mailing list
> Xenomai@xenomai.org
> https://xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai