parallel build of multiple machine/os?

parallel build of multiple machine/os?

[Koehler, Yannick (HP Networking)]

Can Yocto build for example in a single bitbake call an image for x86, ppc, arm, others?  Or is the call to bitbake limited to a single architecture?  And if so, how?

I see that lots of *-native package are built, and I guess is that for each machine/os those would be reused, as such, it appears it would be a benefit to be able to build multiple package version for different architecture/distro/machine in a single invocation of bitbake.

--
Yannick Koehler

Re: parallel build of multiple machine/os?

[Khem Raj]

> On Dec 10, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Koehler, Yannick (HP Networking) <yannick.koehler@hp.com> wrote:
> 
> Can Yocto build for example in a single bitbake call an image for x86, ppc, arm, others?  Or is the call to bitbake limited to a single architecture?  And if so, how?
> 
> I see that lots of *-native package are built, and I guess is that for each machine/os those would be reused, as such, it appears it would be a benefit to be able to build multiple package version for different architecture/distro/machine in a single invocation of bitbake.
> 

parallel multi-machine builds have been discussed but not thought of worth doing. you could however share
lot of common packages among machines sequentially.

MACHINE=foo bitbake x
MACHINE=bar bitbake y

the second invocation would be able to share many artifacts from first builds e.g. native packages
and nativesdk packages etc. so its generally faster than first build.


> --
> Yannick Koehler
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Re: parallel build of multiple machine/os?

[Maciek Borzecki]

On śro, 2014-12-10 at 11:00 -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Koehler, Yannick (HP Networking)
> <yannick.koehler@hp.com> wrote: > > Can Yocto build for example in a
> single bitbake call an image for x86, ppc, arm, others?  Or is the call
> to bitbake limited to a single architecture?  And if so, how? > > I see
> that lots of *-native package are built, and I guess is that for each
> machine/os those would be reused, as such, it appears it would be a
> benefit to be able to build multiple package version for different
> architecture/distro/machine in a single invocation of bitbake. > 
> 
> parallel multi-machine builds have been discussed but not thought of
> worth doing. you could however share lot of common packages among
> machines sequentially.

Out of curiosity, are parallel builds using the same SSTATE_DIR and
DL_DIR, but all other *_DIR variables distinct, considered safe?


-- 
Maciej Borzęcki
Senior Software Developer at Open-RnD Sp. z o.o., Poland
www.open-rnd.pl
mobile: +48 889 117 365, fax: +48 42 657 9079

Niniejsza wiadomość wraz z załącznikami może zawierać chronione prawem
lub poufne informacje i została wysłana wyłącznie do wiadomości i
użytku osób, do których została zaadresowana. Jeśli wiadomość została
otrzymana przypadkowo zabrania się jej kopiowania lub rozsyłania do
osób trzecich. W takim przypadku uprasza się o natychmiastowe
zniszczenie wiadomości oraz poinformowanie nadawcy o zaistniałej
sytuacji za pomocą wiadomości zwrotnej. Dziękujemy.

This message, including any attachments hereto, may contain privileged
or confidential information and is sent solely for the attention and
use of the intended addressee(s). If you are not an intended addressee,
you may neither use this message nor copy or deliver it to anyone. In
such case, you should immediately destroy this message and kindly notify
the sender by reply email. Thank you.

Re: parallel build of multiple machine/os?

[Mike Looijmans]

On 12/10/2014 08:00 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>
>> On Dec 10, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Koehler, Yannick (HP Networking) <yannick.koehler@hp.com> wrote:
>>
>> Can Yocto build for example in a single bitbake call an image for x86, ppc, arm, others?  Or is the call to bitbake limited to a single architecture?  And if so, how?
>>
>> I see that lots of *-native package are built, and I guess is that for each machine/os those would be reused, as such, it appears it would be a benefit to be able to build multiple package version for different architecture/distro/machine in a single invocation of bitbake.
>
> parallel multi-machine builds have been discussed but not thought of worth doing. you could however share
> lot of common packages among machines sequentially.
>
> [...]

A more convincing use-case for multi-machine building is the emerging of 
"hybrids". The little/big architecture that puts different versions of ARM 
CPUs into a single machine is one example, the OMAPs with the DSP and PRUs are 
another. Boards with FPGAs can have several CPU architectures running on a 
single board. One could imagine that one would want to build the software for 
all these subsystems in a single call, and that one bitbake process would be 
managing that the build system gets properly used.

Currently, these hybrids have to invoke bitbake for each subsystem, probably 
needlessly regenerating binaries, and once more for the one image to find them 
all and in darkness bind them...


Met vriendelijke groet / kind regards,

Mike Looijmans
System Expert


TOPIC Embedded Systems
Eindhovenseweg 32-C, NL-5683 KH Best
Postbus 440, NL-5680 AK Best
Telefoon: (+31) (0) 499 33 69 79
Telefax:  (+31) (0) 499 33 69 70
E-mail: mike.looijmans@topic.nl
Website: www.topic.nl

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Topic zoekt gedreven (embedded) software specialisten!
http://topic.nl/vacatures/topic-zoekt-software-engineers/

Re: parallel build of multiple machine/os?

[Mark Hatle]

On 12/11/14, 12:55 AM, Mike Looijmans wrote:
> On 12/10/2014 08:00 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 10, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Koehler, Yannick (HP Networking) <yannick.koehler@hp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can Yocto build for example in a single bitbake call an image for x86, ppc, arm, others?  Or is the call to bitbake limited to a single architecture?  And if so, how?
>>>
>>> I see that lots of *-native package are built, and I guess is that for each machine/os those would be reused, as such, it appears it would be a benefit to be able to build multiple package version for different architecture/distro/machine in a single invocation of bitbake.
>>
>> parallel multi-machine builds have been discussed but not thought of worth doing. you could however share
>> lot of common packages among machines sequentially.
>>
>> [...]
>
> A more convincing use-case for multi-machine building is the emerging of
> "hybrids". The little/big architecture that puts different versions of ARM
> CPUs into a single machine is one example, the OMAPs with the DSP and PRUs are
> another. Boards with FPGAs can have several CPU architectures running on a
> single board. One could imagine that one would want to build the software for
> all these subsystems in a single call, and that one bitbake process would be
> managing that the build system gets properly used.
>
> Currently, these hybrids have to invoke bitbake for each subsystem, probably
> needlessly regenerating binaries, and once more for the one image to find them
> all and in darkness bind them...
>

 From a userspace perspective, this is more or less solved with the multilib 
configurations.  Perhaps it would be possible to implement some kind of hybrid 
kernel configuration using the same type of multilib setup.  (Note, this would 
be new work, it's not something we have today.)

--Mark

> Met vriendelijke groet / kind regards,
>
> Mike Looijmans
> System Expert
>
>
> TOPIC Embedded Systems
> Eindhovenseweg 32-C, NL-5683 KH Best
> Postbus 440, NL-5680 AK Best
> Telefoon: (+31) (0) 499 33 69 79
> Telefax:  (+31) (0) 499 33 69 70
> E-mail: mike.looijmans@topic.nl
> Website: www.topic.nl
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
>
> Topic zoekt gedreven (embedded) software specialisten!
> http://topic.nl/vacatures/topic-zoekt-software-engineers/
>

Re: parallel build of multiple machine/os?

[Mike Looijmans]

On 12/11/2014 08:42 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 12/11/14, 12:55 AM, Mike Looijmans wrote:
>> On 12/10/2014 08:00 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 10, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Koehler, Yannick (HP Networking)
>>>> <yannick.koehler@hp.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can Yocto build for example in a single bitbake call an image for x86,
>>>> ppc, arm, others?  Or is the call to bitbake limited to a single
>>>> architecture?  And if so, how?
>>>>
>>>> I see that lots of *-native package are built, and I guess is that for
>>>> each machine/os those would be reused, as such, it appears it would be a
>>>> benefit to be able to build multiple package version for different
>>>> architecture/distro/machine in a single invocation of bitbake.
>>>
>>> parallel multi-machine builds have been discussed but not thought of worth
>>> doing. you could however share
>>> lot of common packages among machines sequentially.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> A more convincing use-case for multi-machine building is the emerging of
>> "hybrids". The little/big architecture that puts different versions of ARM
>> CPUs into a single machine is one example, the OMAPs with the DSP and PRUs are
>> another. Boards with FPGAs can have several CPU architectures running on a
>> single board. One could imagine that one would want to build the software for
>> all these subsystems in a single call, and that one bitbake process would be
>> managing that the build system gets properly used.
>>
>> Currently, these hybrids have to invoke bitbake for each subsystem, probably
>> needlessly regenerating binaries, and once more for the one image to find them
>> all and in darkness bind them...
>>
>
>  From a userspace perspective, this is more or less solved with the multilib
> configurations.  Perhaps it would be possible to implement some kind of hybrid
> kernel configuration using the same type of multilib setup.  (Note, this would
> be new work, it's not something we have today.)

The OMAP PRU and DSP each run their own bootloader/kernels (the PRU is just 
bare metal code), and do not share code with the ARM that runs the rest. From 
the ARM's perspective, the DSP and PRU just need "firmware".

If I put a Microblaze into the FPGA of a Zynq, I have a system that can run 
multiple kernels, on the built-in ARM CPUs and on the Microblaze(s). The ARM 
is then responsible for bootstrapping the microblaze, but it ends there, as 
the microblaze can run its own kernel and rootfs and applications, and they 
don't need to understand each other's binaries.

One problem here is that the "firmware" for the microblaze would be a "image", 
and images and in particular the rootfs, for reasons yet unknown to me, always 
get rebuilt even if nothing changed and the output would be the same.

I might succeed in spawning another bitbake from within the one that builds 
the ARM system, but on a 8-core system this sub-bitbake would also try to run 
8 parallel processes, each potentially running 8 compiler threads. Some of 
these compilers eat RAM like crazy, so this is not going to be productive. It 
would be much better if the builds for the ARM and mircroblaze would share the 
load. Probably a very challenging thing to do currently.



Met vriendelijke groet / kind regards,

Mike Looijmans
System Expert


TOPIC Embedded Systems
Eindhovenseweg 32-C, NL-5683 KH Best
Postbus 440, NL-5680 AK Best
Telefoon: (+31) (0) 499 33 69 79
Telefax:  (+31) (0) 499 33 69 70
E-mail: mike.looijmans@topic.nl
Website: www.topic.nl

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Topic zoekt gedreven (embedded) software specialisten!
http://topic.nl/vacatures/topic-zoekt-software-engineers/