From: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
To: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>,
Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>,
openembedded-core <openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Further kernel build process changes?
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 10:33:19 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <D0D2B965.B6633%darren.hart@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54AD331F.5060009@windriver.com>
On 1/7/15, 5:22 AM, "Bruce Ashfield" <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> wrote:
>On 2015-01-07 7:26 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> I'm hearing (somewhat justified) complaints that the recent kernel
>> changes have destablised builds. Part of the question is whether the
>> recent changes are as clear to users as they could be, we're also
>> running into some problems due to mixing kernel source and build
>> artefacts in some places and not in others.
>
>And we've been bitten by the sheer diversity in the various additions
>and tweaks to the kernel build process .. which when wading in to try
>and make some improvements was always the risk :(
>
>>
>> At this point I think it may be worth looking at making some more
>> invasive but decisive changes, specifically that:
>>
>> STAGING_KERNEL_DIR moves
>> from sysroots/MACHINE/usr/src/kernel
>> to work-shared/MACHINE/kernel-source
>>
>> This is to make it clearer that the source here is not under the control
>> of sstate. The reasons why we don't want it under the control of sstate
>> are in other emails.
>
>I'm in agreement here.
I would prefer this approach as well.
>> The second change would be to split the kernel source into two:
>>
>> work-shared/MACHINE/kernel-source
>> work-shared/MACHINE/kernel-build
>>
>> where kernel-build is the kernel build output and kernel-source is kept
>> "pristine".
>>
>> This means the defconfig, the kernel-abiversion, System.map files and
>> output from "make scripts" would be in kernel-build.
>
>Exactly. When setting up the minimal external module build environment,
>to keep the impact in the shared directories small, I went with the
>current approach.
>
>Since we are breaking workflows with it .. this would be a good balance
>between the old and new efforts. I started mocking this up over the
>holidays
>but lost a week due to illness. I'll continue running with this now.
Also in agreement here, keeping the sourcedir pristine should reduce
confusion and complexity elsewhere.
>>
>> External module builds do work in this configuration *if* you pass in
>> the correct options e.g.:
>>
>> make -C work-shared/MACHINE/kernel-source
>>O=work-shared/MACHINE/kernel-build M=${S}
>>
>> I've put together a quick proof of concept of this below.
I was concerned about how this would impact hello-mod and recipes modeled
after it, however, in reviewing the patch below, it looks to have this
covered. I¹ll verify this just as soon as my workstation is available
(it¹s ³busy² updating sigh).
>>
>> There are two other things up for discussion. There is of confusion on
>> how the kernel source gets into STAGING_KERNEL_DIR in the first place.
>> We've added in "munging" code which does this in kernel.bbclass,
>> linux-yocto also has its share of "crazy" mess in this regard.
>
>:)
>
>>
>> We could wipe the slate clean and require that people put a parameter
>> against the element in SRC_URI that represents the kernel indicating it
>> should be directly extracted to STAGING_KERNEL_DIR. There is a bitbake
>> issue with being unable to override the extraction directory at present
>> but that can be fixed. The upside is that it would be clean, relatively
>> clear and allow fragile code to be dropped. The downside is it means
>> tweaking all kernel recipes.
I¹m concerned about adding yet more complexity to the SRC_URI I don¹t
have a better proposal though. Part of this fix will need to include fixes
to the kernel-dev manual, I can take that on once we hash this out.
>>
>> The second issue is that of the dependency to populate
>> STAGING_KERNEL_DIR which is now a "depends flag on do_install". The
>> intent is to have kernelsrc.bbclass do this, looking at the things there
>> (such as setting S=), I suspect it may not be fit for purpose. We could
>> adjust the class to check for a variable and set up the dependency if
>> its set.
>>
>> Anyhow, this does need thought and discussion but I'm putting it here as
>> a start to that, and to let people like Bruce see and experiment with
>> the code below.
>
>I'll blend your RFC with what I have on the cooker today and see if I
>can get a patch out ASAP.
>
>I still think it is worth working through these issues and pushing
>forward, we risk slipping deeper into the release if we drop everything
>and start over.
>
>As we all know, the code is complex and we have many workflows
>to support, and I know I'm churning as fast as I can on fixes.
>
>Bruce
A couple of first pass questions below prior to applying and testing
myself...
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel-module-split.bbclass
>>b/meta/classes/kernel-module-split.bbclass
>> index 9a95b72..2d43b51 100644
>> --- a/meta/classes/kernel-module-split.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel-module-split.bbclass
>> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ python split_kernel_module_packages () {
>> m = kerverrexp.match(kernelver)
>> if m:
>> kernelver_stripped = m.group(1)
>> - staging_kernel_dir = d.getVar("STAGING_KERNEL_DIR", True)
>> + staging_kernel_dir = d.getVar("STAGING_KERNEL_BUILDDIR", True)
>> system_map_file = "%s/boot/System.map-%s" % (dvar, kernelver)
>> if not os.path.exists(system_map_file):
>> system_map_file = "%s/System.map-%s" %
>>(staging_kernel_dir, kernelver)
>> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>> index 5cabc2c..b1a1ccf 100644
>> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>> @@ -249,6 +249,10 @@ kernel_do_install() {
>> cp .config $kerneldir/
>> mkdir -p $kerneldir/include/config
>> cp include/config/kernel.release
>>$kerneldir/include/config/kernel.release
>> + if [ -e include/linux/version.h ]; then
>> + mkdir -p $kerneldir/include/linux
>> + cp include/linux/version.h $kerneldir/include/linux/version.h
>> + fi
I know this bit someone with the recent changes, let¹s make sure we add a
comment as to why this is required so we don¹t have to dig it out of the
archives in a year when we¹re doing another round of fixes in this area.
>>
>> # As of Linux kernel version 3.0.1, the clean target removes
>> # arch/powerpc/lib/crtsavres.o which is present in
>> @@ -268,6 +272,45 @@ kernel_do_install() {
>> }
>> do_install[prefuncs] += "package_get_auto_pr"
>>
>> +addtask do_shared_workdir after do_compile before do_install
>> +
>> +do_shared_workdir () {
>> + cd ${B}
>> +
>> + kerneldir=${STAGING_KERNEL_BUILDDIR}
>> + install -d $kerneldir
>> +
>> + #
>> + # Store the kernel version in sysroots for module-base.bbclass
>> + #
>> +
OK, how does this impact the dependency on do_install As we¹re doing
stuff for building modules here, can that now depend on do_shared_workdir?
>> + echo "${KERNEL_VERSION}" > $kerneldir/kernel-abiversion
>> +
>> + # Copy files required for module builds
>> + cp System.map $kerneldir/System.map-${KERNEL_VERSION}
>> + cp Module.symvers $kerneldir/
>> + cp .config $kerneldir/
>> + mkdir -p $kerneldir/include/config
>> + cp include/config/kernel.release
>>$kerneldir/include/config/kernel.release
>> +
>> + # As of Linux kernel version 3.0.1, the clean target removes
>> + # arch/powerpc/lib/crtsavres.o which is present in
>> + # KBUILD_LDFLAGS_MODULE, making it required to build external modules.
>> + if [ ${ARCH} = "powerpc" ]; then
>> + mkdir -p $kerneldir/arch/powerpc/lib/
>> + cp arch/powerpc/lib/crtsavres.o
>>$kerneldir/arch/powerpc/lib/crtsavres.o
>> + fi
>> +
>> + mkdir -p $kerneldir/include/generated/
>> + cp -fR include/generated/* $kerneldir/include/generated/
>> +
>> + if [ -d arch/${ARCH}/include/generated ]; then
>> + mkdir -p $kerneldir/arch/${ARCH}/include/generated/
>> + cp -fR arch/${ARCH}/include/generated/*
>>$kerneldir/arch/${ARCH}/include/generated/
>> + fi
Some of the above is also present in do_install, do we need it in both
places? If so, we should abstract it if possible to avoid duplication and
risk of only one changing in the future when both should.
>> +}
>> +
>> +
>> python sysroot_stage_all () {
>> oe.path.copyhardlinktree(d.expand("${D}${KERNEL_SRC_PATH}"),
>>d.expand("${SYSROOT_DESTDIR}${KERNEL_SRC_PATH}"))
>> }
>> diff --git a/meta/classes/module-base.bbclass
>>b/meta/classes/module-base.bbclass
>> index 9537ba9..c34eee7 100644
>> --- a/meta/classes/module-base.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta/classes/module-base.bbclass
>> @@ -3,16 +3,18 @@ inherit kernel-arch
>> export OS = "${TARGET_OS}"
>> export CROSS_COMPILE = "${TARGET_PREFIX}"
>>
>> -export KERNEL_VERSION =
>>"${@base_read_file('${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR}/kernel-abiversion')}"
>> +export KERNEL_VERSION =
>>"${@base_read_file('${STAGING_KERNEL_BUILDDIR}/kernel-abiversion')}"
>> KERNEL_OBJECT_SUFFIX = ".ko"
>>
>> # kernel modules are generally machine specific
>> PACKAGE_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}"
>>
>> +do_configure[depends] += "virtual/kernel:do_install"
I¹m not clear on the separation of do_shared_workdir and do_install now...
>> +
>> # Function to ensure the kernel scripts are created. Expected to
>> # be called before do_compile. See module.bbclass for an exmaple.
>> do_make_scripts() {
>> unset CFLAGS CPPFLAGS CXXFLAGS LDFLAGS
>> make CC="${KERNEL_CC}" LD="${KERNEL_LD}" AR="${KERNEL_AR}" \
>> - -C ${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR} scripts
>> + -C ${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR} O=${STAGING_KERNEL_BUILDDIR}
>>scripts
>> }
>> diff --git a/meta/classes/module.bbclass b/meta/classes/module.bbclass
>> index ad6f7af..4f466d7 100644
>> --- a/meta/classes/module.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta/classes/module.bbclass
>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ module_do_compile() {
>> KERNEL_VERSION=${KERNEL_VERSION} \
>> CC="${KERNEL_CC}" LD="${KERNEL_LD}" \
>> AR="${KERNEL_AR}" \
>> + O=${STAGING_KERNEL_BUILDDIR} \
>> ${MAKE_TARGETS}
>> }
>>
>> @@ -21,6 +22,7 @@ module_do_install() {
>> oe_runmake DEPMOD=echo INSTALL_MOD_PATH="${D}" \
>> KERNEL_SRC=${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR} \
>> CC="${KERNEL_CC}" LD="${KERNEL_LD}" \
>> + O=${STAGING_KERNEL_BUILDDIR} \
>> modules_install
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
>> index 362d6b6..b1135c2 100644
>> --- a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
>> +++ b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
>> @@ -394,7 +394,8 @@ SDKPATHNATIVE = "${SDKPATH}/sysroots/${SDK_SYS}"
>> ##################################################################
>>
>> OLDEST_KERNEL = "2.6.32"
>> -STAGING_KERNEL_DIR = "${STAGING_DIR_HOST}/usr/src/kernel"
>> +STAGING_KERNEL_DIR = "${TMPDIR}/work-shared/${MACHINE}/kernel-source"
>> +STAGING_KERNEL_BUILDDIR =
>>"${TMPDIR}/work-shared/${MACHINE}/kernel-build"
>>
>> ##################################################################
>> # Specific image creation and rootfs population info.
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-modules/sepbuild.patch
>>b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-modules/sepbuild.patch
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..1b46558
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-modules/sepbuild.patch
>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
>> +Index: git/Makefile
>> +===================================================================
>> +--- git.orig/Makefile
>> ++++ git/Makefile
>> +@@ -67,10 +67,10 @@ else # KERNELRELEASE
>> + CFLAGS = $(EXTCFLAGS)
>> +
>> + default:
>> +- $(MAKE) -C $(KERNEL_SRC) M=$(PWD) modules
>> ++ $(MAKE) -C $(KERNEL_SRC) M=$(PWD) O=$(O) modules
>> +
>> + modules_install:
>> +- $(MAKE) -C $(KERNEL_SRC) M=$(PWD) modules_install
>> ++ $(MAKE) -C $(KERNEL_SRC) M=$(PWD) O=$(O) modules_install
>> +
>> + clean:
>> + $(MAKE) -C $(KERNEL_SRC) M=$(PWD) clean
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-modules_2.5.2.bb
>>b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-modules_2.5.2.bb
>> index 55df07f..58a4196 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-modules_2.5.2.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng/lttng-modules_2.5.2.bb
>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ SRC_URI =
>>"git://git.lttng.org/lttng-modules.git;branch=stable-2.5 \
>>
>>file://lttng-modules-replace-KERNELDIR-with-KERNEL_SRC.patch \
>>
>>file://Fix-noargs-probes-should-calculate-alignment-and-eve.patch \
>>
>>file://Update-kvm-instrumentation-compile-on-3.17-rc1.patch \
>> + file://sepbuild.patch \
>> "
>>
>> export INSTALL_MOD_DIR="kernel/lttng-modules"
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-07 18:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-07 12:26 RFC: Further kernel build process changes? Richard Purdie
2015-01-07 13:22 ` Bruce Ashfield
2015-01-07 18:33 ` Darren Hart [this message]
2015-01-07 21:16 ` Richard Purdie
2015-01-07 21:20 ` Bruce Ashfield
2015-01-13 1:19 ` Robert Yang
2015-01-13 1:27 ` Robert Yang
2015-01-13 2:59 ` Hart, Darren
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=D0D2B965.B6633%darren.hart@intel.com \
--to=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bruce.ashfield@windriver.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.