Re: RISC-V -- are we ready for more, and what do we need to do it?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 2:42 AM David Abdurachmanov
<david.abdurachmanov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 2:28 AM Jeff Law <jlaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/6/23 23:41, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
> > >
> > > Summary from multi-year discussions/feedback on this:
> > > - We don't have proper hardware to put into the data center that holds
> > > servers used by Fedora infrastructure.
> > Right.  dev boards are not the solution here.  It's got to be something
> > that can be racked and with enough performance to matter.
> >
> > > - Not enough single and multi thread performance to avoid large impact
> > > to Fedora development.
> > Agreed.   Returning to a situation like we had with armv7 isn't
> > acceptable IMHO.
> >
> > >
> > > Other than that Fedora/RISCV 37 is the first Fedora version to be
> > > built fully natively using 20+ SiFive HiFive Unmatched boards. On a
> > > good day we can keep up (if the builds aren't too large, e.g. GCC). We
> > > don't really run Bodhi thus once package is built it's immediately
> > > available. We run a very minimal setup right now (ideas to expand
> > > that).
> > It's fantastic we've got that far.  But clearly it's not viable long term.
>
> Agreed. We have been cooking Fedora/RISCV since 2016, but we really
> cannot move forward until the proper hardware (and things around it)
> becomes available.
>
> >
> >
> > > Another news is that Fedora/RISCV Koji server (
> > > http://fedora.riscv.rocks/koji/ ) just moved into Fedora infra owned
> > > server. We are about to start work on Fedora 38/Rawhide.
> > Excellent.  I'll have to update my chroots and containers as the F38
> > bits start appearing.
>
> I am still tweaking the server configuration, but I should be ready
> for mass building soonish.
> I might want to wait for GCC 13 to land in Rawhide, which should
> happen soon (I think).
>
> >
> > >
> > > 2023 is potentially a transition year. Ventana Veyron V1 Development
> > > Platform looks good (I assume it has BMC). SOPHGO SG2042 should also
> > > show up with 64-core @ 2.0GHz (T-HEAD C910) in early 2023 (?) I am not
> > > yet convinced about their upstream support efforts (TBD).
> > Yes Veyron-v1 will have a BMC and will be rackable.   I have no
> > significant insight into the T-HEAD efforts other than they do work a
> > fair amount with VRULL on compiler and related technology.
>
> I noticed that VRULL has been involved with T-HEAD on GCC and
> potentially kernel side for a few months now. This makes them much
> more optimistic about their SoC/HW support in general.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > If there is away to acquire Veyron V1 Development Platform I would be
> > > interested to talk, and figure out what that would take. Such hardware
> > > would be a game charger, and I do trust Ventana regarding upstream
> > > support :)
> > I'll be pushing to make systems available to Fedora and the GCC farm,
> > but in general Ventana is more aligned towards Ubuntu.  My goal is to
> > have Fedora and Ubuntu on equal footing as quickly as possible.
>
> We have been trying to get stuff into GCC Compiler Farm for years now.
> There are a couple of boards IIRC. There are additional requirements
> on the software side (well, distributions) that we couldn't provide
> for quite some time.
>
> >
> > I do know rackable systems will be limited -- there's one particular
> > component needed on the rackable systems that is in very short supply.
> > We've got multiple orders in, but quantities are limited and lead times
> > are absolutely insane.
>
> FYI, I think, the new aarch64 builders are 8 core, 35G RAM and 8G
> swap. The older machines had 8G/core setup. There seems to be 8 (?)
> servers with 80 cores, but so far only 40-50 builders are enabled (no
> overcommitting on CPU as that's not a great idea [based on my own
> experience]).
>
> I expect Veyron V1 to deliver a decent single and multi thread
> performance, but we will need a lot of them. Probably 20-25 systems if
> we assume a similar configuration as aarch64 builders (8-core, 32-64G
> of RAM, 100-200G for storage). RAM and storage are cheap, but systems
> will continue to be a problem. If we could somehow get to this level
> we could stop investing into SBCs as they are stop-gap solutions for
> builders.
>
> Based on some guesses there isn't a lot of time either. I would love
> to bootstrap CentOS Stream 10. It would be nice to have Fedora +
> riscv64 in a good shape before that happens, but probably unrealistic.

It is very unlikely that CentOS Stream 10 will include RISC-V as a
fully included architecture.  Perhaps via a CentOS Stream SIG.

josh
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux