[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] Improve build process
Neil Horman
nhorman at tuxdriver.com
Thu Jan 29 20:45:39 CET 2015
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 05:04:20PM +0000, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio wrote:
> > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman at tuxdriver.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:39 PM
> > To: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/8] Improve build process
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:20:03PM +0000, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
> > > This patch series improves the DPDK build system mostly for shared
> > > libraries (and a few nits for static libraries) with the following goals:
> > > - Create a library containing core DPDK libraries (librte_eal,
> > > librte_malloc, librte_mempool, librte_mbuf and librte_ring).
> > > The idea of core libraries is to group those libraries that are
> > > always required (and have interdependencies) for any DPDK application.
> > > - Remove config option to build a combined library.
> > > - For shared libraries, explicitly link against dependant
> > > libraries (adding entries to DT_NEEDED).
> > > - Update app linking flags for static/shared DPDK libs.
> > >
> > > Sergio Gonzalez Monroy (8):
> > > mk: remove combined library and related options
> > > core: create new librte_core
> > > mk: new corelib makefile
> > > lib: update DEPDIRS variable
> > > lib: set LDLIBS for each library
> > > mk: use LDLIBS when linking shared libraries
> > > mk: update LDLIBS for app building
> > > mk: add -lpthread to linuxapp EXECENV_LDLIBS
> > >
> > > config/common_bsdapp | 6 --
> > > config/common_linuxapp | 6 --
> > > config/defconfig_ppc_64-power8-linuxapp-gcc | 2 -
> > > lib/Makefile | 1 -
> > > lib/librte_acl/Makefile | 5 +-
> > > lib/librte_cfgfile/Makefile | 4 +-
> > > lib/librte_cmdline/Makefile | 6 +-
> > > lib/librte_core/Makefile | 45 +++++++++++++
> > > lib/librte_distributor/Makefile | 5 +-
> > > lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/Makefile | 3 +-
> > > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile | 3 +-
> > > lib/librte_ether/Makefile | 4 +-
> > > lib/librte_hash/Makefile | 4 +-
> > > lib/librte_ip_frag/Makefile | 6 +-
> > > lib/librte_ivshmem/Makefile | 4 +-
> > > lib/librte_kni/Makefile | 6 +-
> > > lib/librte_kvargs/Makefile | 6 +-
> > > lib/librte_lpm/Makefile | 6 +-
> > > lib/librte_malloc/Makefile | 2 +-
> > > lib/librte_mbuf/Makefile | 2 +-
> > > lib/librte_mempool/Makefile | 2 +-
> > > lib/librte_meter/Makefile | 4 +-
> > > lib/librte_pipeline/Makefile | 3 +
> > > lib/librte_pmd_af_packet/Makefile | 5 +-
> > > lib/librte_pmd_bond/Makefile | 7 +-
> > > lib/librte_pmd_e1000/Makefile | 8 ++-
> > > lib/librte_pmd_enic/Makefile | 8 ++-
> > > lib/librte_pmd_i40e/Makefile | 8 ++-
> > > lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/Makefile | 8 ++-
> > > lib/librte_pmd_pcap/Makefile | 5 +-
> > > lib/librte_pmd_ring/Makefile | 6 +-
> > > lib/librte_pmd_virtio/Makefile | 7 +-
> > > lib/librte_pmd_vmxnet3/Makefile | 8 ++-
> > > lib/librte_pmd_xenvirt/Makefile | 8 ++-
> > > lib/librte_port/Makefile | 8 +--
> > > lib/librte_power/Makefile | 4 +-
> > > lib/librte_ring/Makefile | 2 +-
> > > lib/librte_sched/Makefile | 7 +-
> > > lib/librte_table/Makefile | 8 +--
> > > lib/librte_timer/Makefile | 6 +-
> > > lib/librte_vhost/Makefile | 9 +--
> > > mk/exec-env/linuxapp/rte.vars.mk | 2 +
> > > mk/rte.app.mk | 53 ++++-----------
> > > mk/rte.corelib.mk | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > mk/rte.lib.mk | 49 +++-----------
> > > mk/rte.sdkbuild.mk | 3 -
> > > mk/rte.sharelib.mk | 101 ----------------------------
> > > mk/rte.vars.mk | 9 ---
> > > 48 files changed, 276 insertions(+), 282 deletions(-) create mode
> > > 100644 lib/librte_core/Makefile create mode 100644 mk/rte.corelib.mk
> > > delete mode 100644 mk/rte.sharelib.mk
> > >
> > > --
> > > 1.9.3
> > >
> > >
> > Something occured to me thinking about this patch set. I noticed recently
> > that different rules are used to build the shared combined lib from the
> > individual shared objects. The implication here is that linker options specified
> > in individual make files (like the LIBABIVER and EXPORT_MAP options in my
> > ABI versioning script) get ignored, which is bad. Any other file specific linker
> > options (like <file>_LDFLAGS specified in individual library makefiles are
> > getting dropped for the combined lib.
> >
> > It seems like it would be better if the combined libs were manufactured as
> > linker scripts themselves (textfiles that used linker directives to include
> > individual libraries under the covers (see /lib64/libc.so for an example).
> >
> > The disadvantage of such an approach are fairly minimal. With such a
> > combined library, you still need to install individual libraries, but for
> > applications that wish to link and run against a single dpdk library will still work
> > just as they currently do, you can link to just a single library.
> >
> > The advantage is clear however. By following a linker script aproach, objects
> > build as separate libraries are built exactly the same way, using the same
> > rules with the same options. It reduces the dpdk build environment size and
> > complexity, and reduces the opportunity for bugs to creep in from forgetting
> > to add build options to multiple locations. It also provides a more granular
> > approach for grouping files. Creating a dpdk core library becomes a matter of
> > creating a one line linker script named libdpdk_core.so, rather than re-
> > arraning sections of the build system.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Neil
> >
> Hi Neil,
>
> I think that is a very interesting approach.
> I have tried to do something similar in this patch by removing rte.sharelib.mk and
> just having rte.lib.mk to do the linking, leaving as you suggest a single file to
> modify anything related to building libs.
>
> I do think however that your proposal is an improvement over the current patch.
>
> So basically we want:
> - get rid of rte.corelib.mk
> - generate librte_core.so linker script grouping core libs
> - we do not modify DEPDIR variables
> - when setting LDLIBS to each lib, we do specify -lrte_core, right?
>
Exactly, and librte_core.so is really just a text file containing the following
line
:
INPUT(-lrte_malloc -lrte_mbuf -lrte_eal ....)
Adding in whatever libraries you want librte_core to consist of. Truthfully,
you could almost get rid of the COMBINE_LIBS option entirely, and just create
this file statically if you wanted to (not sure thats the best approach, but its
definately do-able).
Regards
Neil
More information about the dev
mailing list