From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Romain Naour Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:34:44 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC PATCH 0/4] add BCC and bpftrace packages In-Reply-To: <20200927193829.hz5f4fx6amddca53@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20200926193133.31390-1-qais.yousef@arm.com> <89cf8133-e2d3-0a83-e526-8605eca10d56@gmail.com> <20200927193829.hz5f4fx6amddca53@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <3434c5c7-bbad-149f-18d7-47455965ca06@smile.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello Qais, Le 27/09/2020 ? 21:38, Qais Yousef a ?crit?: > Hi Romain > > On 09/26/20 23:06, Romain Naour wrote: >> Hello Qais, >> >> Le 26/09/2020 ? 21:31, Qais Yousef a ?crit?: >>> The following series adds 2 new packages: >>> >>> * BPF Compiler Collection (BCC) >>> * bpftrace >>> >>> It is based on 2020.08 tag. Can rebase on tip of master after this initial RFC >>> review. >>> >>> The support was validated on x86_64 and aarch64 (little endian). Hence >>> restricted to these 2 archs only. aarch64 big endian is set as valid, but when >>> I tried to compile that I think LLVM or clang support for aarch64_be + BPF was >>> generating some errors; or something else was missing. So it might be a better >>> idea to remove BR2_aarch64_be from Config.in dependency. >>> >>> I tried to enable i386 and arm (aarch32); but I encountered some issues and >>> decided to narrow the initial support to what I got working in hope that other >>> archs support can follow through later if people are interested. >>> >>> IIRC the issues were: >>> >>> * bpftrace doesn't support these 2 archs. >>> * BCC had some build failures on arm. >>> * BCC had runtime issues on i386. >>> >>> Marking this as RFC as it is something that was done over several weekends and >>> my last contribution to buildroot was many many years ago. So I am sure there >>> are many rough edges to tackle. Beside from my vague description above, you >>> might have gotten the hint it's been a while since I last touched it. But I'd >>> like to get the support merged, so hopefully starting a discussion with what >>> I have now is a better start. >> >> Thanks for this contribution, first make sure to subscribe to the Buildroot >> mailing list. Otherwise your patch are not automatically recorded in patchwork. > > Thanks for the quick response. I did subscribe now. Do I need to resend the > series? Yes please. > >> >> There is an existing patch series proposed by Jugurtha Belkalem earlier this year: >> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/buildroot/list/?series=197400 > > I did see that actually. I can't remember if I tried it, but it focused on > luajit and seemed partially enabling BCC. I never used BCC with lua before. > Will go give it another look anyway. Jugurtha did a runtime test last year and published an article on our blog: https://www.linuxembedded.fr/article/bcc-integration-buildroot Since his first try, the luajit problem with aarch64 was fixed thanks to the switch to moonjit (a luajit fork). > >> >> Can you review it and check if it fix errors you noticed on aarch64. >> Jugurtha did a test on a Raspberry-pi 64 bits. > > My issue for aarch64 was for big endian builds. I think the dependency chain > for big endian aarch64 was missing something. > > aarch64 little endian works fine and have been using it for a short while now. Ok great. Best regards, Romain > > Thanks > > -- > Qais Yousef > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot at busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot >