[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev, 01/17] build: add initial infrastructure for meson & ninja builds

Wiles, Keith keith.wiles at intel.com
Thu Sep 7 18:47:00 CEST 2017


> On Sep 7, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 11:04:00AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>> To build with meson and ninja, we need some initial infrastructure in
>> place. The build files for meson always need to be called "meson.build",
>> and options get placed in meson_options.txt
>> 
>> This commit adds a top-level meson.build file, which sets up the global
>> variables for tracking drivers, libraries, etc., and then includes other
>> build files, before finishing by writing the global build configuration
>> header file and a DPDK pkgconfig file at the end, using some of those same
>> globals.
>> 
>>> From the top level build file, the only include file thus far is for the
>> config folder, which does some other setup of global configuration
>> parameters, including pulling in architecture specific parameters from an
>> architectural subdirectory. A number of configuration build options are
>> provided for the project to tune a number of global variables which will be
>> used later e.g. max numa nodes, max cores, etc. These settings all make
>> their way to the global build config header "rte_build_config.h". There is
>> also a file "rte_config.h", which includes "rte_build_config.h", and this
>> file is meant to hold other build-time values which are present in our
>> current static build configuration but are not normally meant for
>> user-configuration. Ideally, over time, the values placed here should be
>> moved to the individual libraries or drivers which want those values.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>
> 
> I feel like I need to underscore my previous concern here.  While I'm not
> opposed per-se to a new build system, I am very concerned about the burden that
> switching places on downstream consumers, in particular distributions (since I
> represent one of them).  Moving to a new build system with new tools means those
> tools need to be packaged, tested and shipped, which is a significant work
> effort.  While it might be a net gain long term, its something you need to keep
> in mind when making these changes.
> 
> I know you've said that we will be keepting the existing build system, I just
> need to be sure everyone understands just how important that is.
> 
> Though perhaps the time frame for keeping the current build system as priarmy is
> less concerning, as feature parity is even more critical.  That is to say, the
> new build system must be able to produce the same configurations that the
> current build system does.  Without it I don't think anyone will be able to use
> it consistently, and that will leave a great number of users in a very poor
> position.  I think getting a little closer to parity with the current system is
> warranted.  I'd suggest as a gating factor:
> 
> 1) Building on all supported arches
> 2) Cross building on all supported arches
> 3) Proper identification of targeted machine (i.e. equivalent of the machine
> component of the current build system)

I think your concerns are important and we have to keep the current build system even after the new build system is at parity with the current one. We most likely will have to keep the current build system around for a while like year or more as it will be hard for all distros to convert and add the needed tools to build with DPDK. The problem will be making sure changes in one are reflected in the other build system.

The new build system has a lot of advantages and Bruce is doing a good job, but we need to open it up into a project for more to contribute, which I assume is the goal here.

> 
> Specific notes inline
> 
>> ---
>> config/meson.build     | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> config/rte_config.h    | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> config/x86/meson.build | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> meson.build            | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> meson_options.txt      |  6 ++++
>> 5 files changed, 278 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 config/meson.build
>> create mode 100644 config/rte_config.h
>> create mode 100644 config/x86/meson.build
>> create mode 100644 meson.build
>> create mode 100644 meson_options.txt
>> 
>> diff --git a/config/meson.build b/config/meson.build
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000..3a6bcc58d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/config/meson.build
>> @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
>> +#   BSD LICENSE
>> +#
>> +#   Copyright(c) 2017 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
>> +#   All rights reserved.
>> +#
>> +#   Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> +#   modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>> +#   are met:
>> +#
>> +#     * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> +#       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>> +#     * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> +#       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
>> +#       the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
>> +#       distribution.
>> +#     * Neither the name of Intel Corporation nor the names of its
>> +#       contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
>> +#       from this software without specific prior written permission.
>> +#
>> +#   THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
>> +#   "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
>> +#   LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
>> +#   A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
>> +#   OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
>> +#   SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
>> +#   LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
>> +#   DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
>> +#   THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
>> +#   (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
>> +#   OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>> +
>> +# set the machine type and cflags for it
>> +machine = get_option('machine')
>> +dpdk_conf.set('RTE_MACHINE', machine)
>> +add_project_arguments('-march=@0@'.format(machine), language: 'c')
> So, in the current build system, arch defined the process architecture, while
> 'machine' defined the specific processor family (nhm, ivb, etc).  This seems
> like you are merging those two concepts together.  While that seems reasonable,
> is that going to be workable with non-x86 architectures?
> 
> Have you considered using the cross-script option in meson to define a per arch
> build file? That I think would eliminate some of this top level parsing of arch
> options
> 
>> +# some libs depend on maths lib
>> +add_project_link_arguments('-lm', language: 'c')
>> +
>> +# add -include rte_config to cflags
>> +add_project_arguments('-include', 'rte_config.h', language: 'c')
>> +
>> +# disable any unwanted warnings
>> +unwanted_warnings = [
>> +	'-Wno-address-of-packed-member',
>> +	'-Wno-format-truncation'
>> +]
>> +foreach arg: unwanted_warnings
>> +	if cc.has_argument(arg)
>> +		add_project_arguments(arg, language: 'c')
>> +	endif
>> +endforeach
>> +
>> +compile_time_cpuflags = []
>> +if host_machine.cpu_family().startswith('x86')
>> +	arch_subdir = 'x86'
>> +	subdir(arch_subdir)
>> +endif
>> +dpdk_conf.set('RTE_COMPILE_TIME_CPUFLAGS', ','.join(compile_time_cpuflags))
>> +
> Likewise, I think if you use the --cross-script approach, this logic gets
> eliminated in favor of a file pointer from the command line
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
>> +
>> +# set up some global vars for compiler, platform, configuration, etc.
>> +cc = meson.get_compiler('c')
>> +dpdk_conf = configuration_data()
>> +dpdk_libraries = []
>> +dpdk_drivers = []
>> +dpdk_extra_ldflags = []
>> +
>> +# for static libs, treat the drivers as regular libraries, otherwise
>> +# for shared libs, put them in a driver folder
>> +if get_option('default_library') == 'static'
>> +	driver_install_path = get_option('libdir')
>> +else
>> +	driver_install_path = '@0@/dpdk/drivers'.format(get_option('prefix'))
>> +endif
>> +
> So, I like this, as it appears to default to shared library builds, which is
> great.  Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work for me when using this command:
> 
> meson -Ddefault_library=static -Dlibdir=./build/lib . build

In a previous version of the build system I just edited the meson_option.txt file can changed it to static and that worked. The command line should work, but have not tried that option.

> 
> If I do that and then run ninja in my build directory, I still get DSO's not
> static libraries.  I am assuming that I'm doing something subtly wrong in my
> build, but I can't seem to see what it is.
> 
> On the other hand, if static builds don't work yet, thats going to be an issue.
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> +# configure the build, and make sure configs here and in config folder are
>> +# able to be included in any file. We also store a global array of include dirs
>> +# for passing to pmdinfogen scripts
>> +global_inc = include_directories('.', 'config')
>> +subdir('config')
>> +
>> +# TODO build libs and drivers
>> +
>> +# TODO build binaries and installable tools
>> +
> This seems outdated, but I think you remove it in a later patch
> 
> Neil

Regards,
Keith



More information about the dev mailing list