plumbers session on CI and LLVM

plumbers session on CI and LLVM

[Nick Desaulniers]

Hi Kevin and folks,
I'm trying to put together a Micro Conference for plumbers focused on
LLVM.  In particular, I'd like to have a session that focuses on
Continuous Integration (KernelCI, 0day bot, tuxbuild, kernel
configuration space, and LLVM buildbots).

I'm curious, are you all planning on attending the conference?

If so, would such a session be of interest to attend or speak at?

I saw the testing MC has already been approved and that Kevin and
Sasha are the leads.  I'm still working on the approval for our MC so
it may not happen ultimately, but I still would like to have such a
session regardless of which MC it's in.

Do folks who are planning to attend such a session have thoughts on
whether we can carve this out of the existing testing MC vs keep it in
the LLVM MC, or even if it is of value or not?  One thing I'm curious
is what happens for two concurrent MCs if leads need to attend both?
Maybe the conference committee can help us avoid such scheduling
contention?

Our compatibility matrix is a little complicated; Prof. Acher has some
eye opening statistics, and I'd like to cover why and what "it's
complicated" currently means for LLVM support for the benefit of CI
systems, and general info for attendees.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

Re: plumbers session on CI and LLVM

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1015 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 12:24:07PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers via groups.io wrote:

> I'm trying to put together a Micro Conference for plumbers focused on
> LLVM.  In particular, I'd like to have a session that focuses on
> Continuous Integration (KernelCI, 0day bot, tuxbuild, kernel
> configuration space, and LLVM buildbots).

> I'm curious, are you all planning on attending the conference?

I think most of the KernelCI people will be there.

> If so, would such a session be of interest to attend or speak at?

I'd certainly be interested, I think some of the other Arm people would
be too.

> the LLVM MC, or even if it is of value or not?  One thing I'm curious
> is what happens for two concurrent MCs if leads need to attend both?
> Maybe the conference committee can help us avoid such scheduling
> contention?

In the past the organizers have tried to avoid scheduling issues when
they've been highlighted to them.  I'm not sure if the conference being
online will make that less of an issue than normal.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: plumbers session on CI and LLVM

[Kevin Hilman]

Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> writes:

> Hi Kevin and folks,
> I'm trying to put together a Micro Conference for plumbers focused on
> LLVM.  In particular, I'd like to have a session that focuses on
> Continuous Integration (KernelCI, 0day bot, tuxbuild, kernel
> configuration space, and LLVM buildbots).
>
> I'm curious, are you all planning on attending the conference?

Yes, I plan to attend and most KernelCI folks will be there as well as
we'll have a few topics at the testing/fuzzing microconf.

> If so, would such a session be of interest to attend or speak at?

Yes.

> I saw the testing MC has already been approved and that Kevin and
> Sasha are the leads.  I'm still working on the approval for our MC so
> it may not happen ultimately, but I still would like to have such a
> session regardless of which MC it's in.
>
> Do folks who are planning to attend such a session have thoughts on
> whether we can carve this out of the existing testing MC vs keep it in
> the LLVM MC, or even if it is of value or not?

If you don't get your approved, feel free to submit to testing/fuzzing,
but it looks to me that doing so would limit the scope of topics you
want to discuss.  It sounds to me like you have enough non-CI topics for
your own MC.

> One thing I'm curious is what happens for two concurrent MCs if leads
> need to attend both?  Maybe the conference committee can help us avoid
> such scheduling contention?

When you submit your MC you can request to be scheduled separately from
testing/fuzzing so we can attend both.

Kevin

Re: plumbers session on CI and LLVM

[Mathieu Acher]

Hi, 

I will attend Plumbers and am interested by continuous integration and LLVM, great initiative. 

Best, 

--
Dr. Mathieu ACHER, Associate Professor
Univ Rennes, Inria, CNRS, IRISA, France (DiverSE team)
http://www.mathieuacher.com/

----- Mail original -----
> De: "khilman" <khilman@baylibre.com>
> À: "Nick Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@google.com>
> Cc: kernelci@groups.io, "Chen Rong" <rong.a.chen@intel.com>, "Philip Li" <philip.li@intel.com>, "Dan Rue"
> <dan.rue@linaro.org>, "clang-built-linux" <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>, "Mathieu Acher"
> <mathieu.acher@irisa.fr>, "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>, "Sasha Levin" <sashal@kernel.org>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 9 Juillet 2020 18:19:27
> Objet: Re: plumbers session on CI and LLVM

> Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi Kevin and folks,
>> I'm trying to put together a Micro Conference for plumbers focused on
>> LLVM.  In particular, I'd like to have a session that focuses on
>> Continuous Integration (KernelCI, 0day bot, tuxbuild, kernel
>> configuration space, and LLVM buildbots).
>>
>> I'm curious, are you all planning on attending the conference?
> 
> Yes, I plan to attend and most KernelCI folks will be there as well as
> we'll have a few topics at the testing/fuzzing microconf.
> 
>> If so, would such a session be of interest to attend or speak at?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> I saw the testing MC has already been approved and that Kevin and
>> Sasha are the leads.  I'm still working on the approval for our MC so
>> it may not happen ultimately, but I still would like to have such a
>> session regardless of which MC it's in.
>>
>> Do folks who are planning to attend such a session have thoughts on
>> whether we can carve this out of the existing testing MC vs keep it in
>> the LLVM MC, or even if it is of value or not?
> 
> If you don't get your approved, feel free to submit to testing/fuzzing,
> but it looks to me that doing so would limit the scope of topics you
> want to discuss.  It sounds to me like you have enough non-CI topics for
> your own MC.
> 
>> One thing I'm curious is what happens for two concurrent MCs if leads
>> need to attend both?  Maybe the conference committee can help us avoid
>> such scheduling contention?
> 
> When you submit your MC you can request to be scheduled separately from
> testing/fuzzing so we can attend both.
> 
> Kevin

Re: plumbers session on CI and LLVM

[Nick Desaulniers]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 12:24 PM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin and folks,
> I'm trying to put together a Micro Conference for plumbers focused on
> LLVM.  In particular, I'd like to have a session that focuses on
> Continuous Integration (KernelCI, 0day bot, tuxbuild, kernel
> configuration space, and LLVM buildbots).

Thanks for the positive feedback folks. We just got the notice that
the LLVM MC got approved for plumbers.
https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/blog/2020/llvm-microconference-accepted-into-2020-linux-plumbers-conference/
https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/event/7/page/80-accepted-microconferences
So reminder to buy your tickets for the conf if you have not done so already.
https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/event/7/page/47-attend

I plan to host this subject in our MC.  We don't have a lot of the
details finalized quite yet, but the timing of the overall MC is going
to be tight.  I don't know yet which day our MC will be on yet and
will let you know as soon as I do, but in a rough sketch of the
proposed talks we can carve out 30 minutes to the subject.  I'm sure
that's not enough time for the subject material, but we don't plan on
having any other talks take longer since we're trying to fit quite a
few talks in.

I plan on hosting a small status update on what arch's build with
Clang, what's missing where, and what we're trying to do in the future
(hint: `make LLVM=1`).  Then we'll save the rest for open discussion.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers