ALHP
/
ALHP.GO
6
34
Fork 9
Code Issues 29 Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Provide x86-64-v2 #17

New Issue
Closed
opened 2021-07-09 22:46:49 +02:00 by anonfunc · 17 comments
anonfunc commented 2021-07-09 22:46:49 +02:00
Owner
Copy Link

I plan to also provide x86-64-v2, even if the speed improvements are almost negligible.

Maybe it is even possible to get something like a x86-64-v2.5/x86-64-v2+ from combining baseline x86-64-v2 with AVX, which most "not-quite v3" CPUs support (Ivy Bridge for example). Need to consider if this supports enough CPUs and brings enough performance to be viable.

I plan to also provide x86-64-v2, even if the speed improvements are almost negligible. Maybe it is even possible to get something like a `x86-64-v2.5`/`x86-64-v2+` from combining baseline `x86-64-v2` with AVX, which most "not-quite v3" CPUs support (Ivy Bridge for example). Need to consider if this supports enough CPUs and brings enough performance to be viable.
anonfunc added the
enhancement
 label 2021-07-09 22:46:49 +02:00
anonfunc added a new dependency 2021-07-09 22:47:04 +02:00
#16 Blacklisted packages
anonfunc added a new dependency 2021-07-09 22:47:12 +02:00
#15 Check (make-)depends are up-to-date before trying to build
anonfunc removed a dependency 2021-07-09 22:47:17 +02:00
#16 Blacklisted packages
anonfunc changed title from Add x86-64-v2 to Provide x86-64-v2 2021-07-09 22:51:39 +02:00
anonfunc added the
help wanted
 label 2021-07-09 23:00:54 +02:00
titaniumtown commented 2021-11-13 23:37:36 +01:00
Copy Link

My home server has a Xeon E5-2697 v2 which is a 12 core 24 thread cpu that supports up to x86-64-v2. Is there some way that I could setup a build server and contribute to a possible x86-64-v2 repo?

My home server has a `Xeon E5-2697 v2` which is a 12 core 24 thread cpu that supports up to `x86-64-v2`. Is there some way that I could setup a build server and contribute to a possible `x86-64-v2` repo?
anonfunc commented 2021-11-13 23:47:15 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

'Distributed' building like that brings some challenges:

  • signing
  • coordinating (if multiple 'buildserver' exist)
  • distribution (how to get build packages were they need to be)

All technically possible to implement, just very time-consuming.

I actually plan to enable v2 soon, just waiting for gcc 11.2. As soon as that hits the official repos, v2 can start building. Otherwise some big packages are just gonna be OOM-killed, see the linked issue for more.

'Distributed' building like that brings some challenges: - signing - coordinating (if multiple 'buildserver' exist) - distribution (how to get build packages were they need to be) All technically possible to implement, just very time-consuming. I actually plan to enable v2 soon, [just waiting for](https://git.harting.dev/anonfunc/ALHP.GO/issues/52#issuecomment-696) `gcc` *11.2*. As soon as that hits the official repos, v2 can start building. Otherwise some big packages are just gonna be OOM-killed, see the linked issue for more.
👍 1
titaniumtown commented 2021-11-13 23:55:59 +01:00
Copy Link

Ah ok.

Ah ok.
anonfunc commented 2021-11-29 13:18:10 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

I just started the v2 build. It'll take a few days to build the whole repo. The v3 build-process should not be affected besides a few delayed updates due to higher load.

I just started the v2 build. It'll take a few days to build the whole repo. The v3 build-process should not be affected besides a few delayed updates due to higher load.
👀 2 🚀 2
titaniumtown commented 2021-11-29 14:50:14 +01:00
Copy Link

ooo, nice to hear the progress! My x86-64-v2 machines will love that little performance bump, keep us posted!

ooo, nice to hear the progress! My x86-64-v2 machines will love that little performance bump, keep us posted!
👍 2
Gontier-Julien commented 2021-11-29 15:29:59 +01:00
Copy Link

I just started the v2 build. It'll take a few days to build the whole repo. The v3 build-process should not be affected besides a few delayed updates due to higher load.

Nice when I will finally get a connection back I could report if they're any problem on my v2 machine

> I just started the v2 build. It'll take a few days to build the whole repo. The v3 build-process should not be affected besides a few delayed updates due to higher load. Nice when I will finally get a connection back I could report if they're any problem on my v2 machine
👍 2
anonfunc removed the
help wanted
 label 2021-11-29 16:59:18 +01:00
anonfunc commented 2021-11-29 17:16:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

x86-64-v2 will be the first -march which had LTO enabled from the very start (so all packages buildable with LTO are going to be build with it). I'm most interested in the resulting performance increase with SSE(x86-64-v2 is mostly SSE)+LTO.

`x86-64-v2` will be the first `-march` which had LTO enabled from the very start (so all packages buildable with LTO are going to be build with it). I'm most interested in the resulting performance increase with SSE(x86-64-v2 is mostly SSE)+LTO.
👍 3
anonfunc commented 2021-11-30 21:22:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

It's about 20% done, ETA Friday.

It's about 20% done, ETA Friday.
👍 2
Gontier-Julien commented 2021-12-01 18:16:26 +01:00
Copy Link

It's about 20% done, ETA Friday.

Just got some connection back so i will be ready to test it all when it ready

> It's about 20% done, ETA Friday. Just got some connection back so i will be ready to test it all when it ready
👍 1
titaniumtown commented 2021-12-03 16:24:43 +01:00
Copy Link

Is there some place to see like what packages are currently building/queued?

Is there some place to see like what packages are currently building/queued?
anonfunc commented 2021-12-03 16:35:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Sure, the package status page. Search (ctrl+f) for building or queued (or just check to total numbers in the footer).

Sure, [the package status page](https://alhp.anonfunc.dev/packages.html). Search (ctrl+f) for *building* or *queued* (or just check to total numbers in the footer).
titaniumtown commented 2021-12-03 18:21:10 +01:00
Copy Link

Ah ok. Got it!

Ah ok. Got it!
Gontier-Julien commented 2021-12-03 20:35:32 +01:00
Copy Link

It's about 20% done, ETA Friday.

Any update on the pourcentage of pacakages that is build now for the V2 architeture?

> It's about 20% done, ETA Friday. Any update on the pourcentage of pacakages that is build now for the V2 architeture?
anonfunc commented 2021-12-03 20:43:41 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Since electron* got like 3+ updates this week things slowed done somewhat (each electron batch takes approximately 0.5d to 1d), so we sit at ~50% done.

The footers queued gives an idea of how many packages are left. If it goes below 100 packages I would consider the v2 build as done.

Since `electron*` got like 3+ updates this week things slowed done somewhat (each electron batch takes approximately 0.5d to 1d), so we sit at ~50% done. The footers *queued* gives an idea of how many packages are left. If it goes below 100 packages I would consider the v2 build as done.
Gontier-Julien commented 2021-12-04 12:20:23 +01:00
Copy Link

Since electron* got like 3+ updates this week things slowed done somewhat (each electron batch takes approximately 0.5d to 1d), so we sit at ~50% done.

The footers queued gives an idea of how many packages are left. If it goes below 100 packages I would consider the v2 build as done.

Oh geez i didn't electron build would take such a long time, and okay i'll will keep my eyes out on it them

> Since `electron*` got like 3+ updates this week things slowed done somewhat (each electron batch takes approximately 0.5d to 1d), so we sit at ~50% done. > > The footers *queued* gives an idea of how many packages are left. If it goes below 100 packages I would consider the v2 build as done. Oh geez i didn't electron build would take such a long time, and okay i'll will keep my eyes out on it them
anonfunc commented 2021-12-07 09:39:25 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

Only [core] and [extra] left.

Only **[core]** and **[extra]** left.
🚀 2
anonfunc commented 2021-12-09 17:05:02 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

It finished. I tested it on my only v2 machine and it works fine so far. I'm closing this issue, since its topic is resolved. Feel free to comment on any before-after benchmarks you may run or other non-issues.

If you experience any issue with v2, please open a new issue.

It finished. I tested it on my only v2 machine and it works fine so far. I'm closing this issue, since its topic is resolved. Feel free to comment on any before-after benchmarks you may run or other non-issues. If you experience any issue with v2, please open a new issue.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
main
Labels
Clear labels   
blocked upstream

   
bug

Something is not working

  
build-failure

package build fails because of our added buildflags

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature

  
help wanted

Need some help

  
informational

Provides information about something

  
invalid

Something is wrong

  
invalid/corrupt package

Package needs to be rebuild

  
packaging issue

   
priority: high

High priority

  
question

More information is needed

  
support

   
wontfix

This won't be fixed

No Label
blocked upstream
bug
build-failure
duplicate
enhancement
help wanted
informational
invalid
invalid/corrupt package
packaging issue
priority: high
question
support
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Depends on
#15 Check (make-)depends are up-to-date before trying to build
ALHP/ALHP.GO
Reference: ALHP/ALHP.GO#17
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?