coreboot November 2015

coreboot@coreboot.org

38 participants
97 discussions

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)
by David Hendricks 02 Nov '15

02 Nov '15

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:33 PM, ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > yeah, FOSDEM happens at a very unpleasant time of year. Short days, lots > of rain, cold, ... > > ron > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:07 PM Vadim Bendebury <vbendeb(a)chromium.org> > wrote: > >> I just looked at the dates - end of January seems a bit odd time to >> visit, cold nasty weather, higher likelihood of air travel delays, etc. Not >> a major consideration, … [View More]

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)
by ron minnich 02 Nov '15

02 Nov '15

yeah, FOSDEM happens at a very unpleasant time of year. Short days, lots of rain, cold, ... ron On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:07 PM Vadim Bendebury <vbendeb(a)chromium.org> wrote: > I just looked at the dates - end of January seems a bit odd time to visit, > cold nasty weather, higher likelihood of air travel delays, etc. Not a > major consideration, but something to keep in mind when deciding on > dates... > > --vb > > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:00 PM, David … [View More]

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)
by Vadim Bendebury 02 Nov '15

02 Nov '15

I just looked at the dates - end of January seems a bit odd time to visit, cold nasty weather, higher likelihood of air travel delays, etc. Not a major consideration, but something to keep in mind when deciding on dates... --vb On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:00 PM, David Hendricks <dhendrix(a)google.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:41 AM, <echelon(a)free.fr> wrote: > >> Dear coreboot friends, >> >> As discussed briefly in the last minutes of the Bonn … [View More]

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)
by David Hendricks 02 Nov '15

02 Nov '15

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:41 AM, <echelon(a)free.fr> wrote: > Dear coreboot friends, > > As discussed briefly in the last minutes of the Bonn meeting, I propose > to organize the next coreboot hackaton in Paris in 2016. > Here is my plan (in broad lines, to be refined subsequently): Sounds good to me! > PS : initially I planned to schedule this hackaton near the FOSDEM 2016, > but after > some discussions with Ron and Stefan, I realize that maybe this is not … [View More]

1 0

Re: [coreboot] Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)
by ron minnich 01 Nov '15

01 Nov '15

This sounds like a wonderful idea, and I think I would like to attend and help out. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 8:42 AM <echelon(a)free.fr> wrote: > Dear coreboot friends, > > As discussed briefly in the last minutes of the Bonn meeting, I propose > to organize the next coreboot hackaton in Paris in 2016. > Here is my plan (in broad lines, to be refined subsequently): > - the venue would be hosted by the Electrolab, the famous hackerspace in > Paris (www.electrolab.fr)… [View More]

1 0

Coreboot hackaton 2016 (proposal in Paris)
by echelon＠free.fr 01 Nov '15

01 Nov '15

Dear coreboot friends, As discussed briefly in the last minutes of the Bonn meeting, I propose to organize the next coreboot hackaton in Paris in 2016. Here is my plan (in broad lines, to be refined subsequently): - the venue would be hosted by the Electrolab, the famous hackerspace in Paris (www.electrolab.fr); - this time the meeting would be more of the "hackaton type" as in "come when you want, stay as much you want and hack as much as you can.." ;-) - after some preliminary … [View More]

1 0

A case for branching AGESA
by Alex G. 01 Nov '15

01 Nov '15

AGESA is a very heavy beast, at over one and a half million lines of code. Although contributions to the AGESA codebase (boards and supporting chipset/cpu code) have slowed down significantly over the years, we still rebuild this behemoth for every version of a patch. This causes quite a bit of strain on our build infrastructure, and even with an army of four state-of-the art build machines, some people (wink, wink, Martin) are concerned with long patch trains and verification times. I can't … [View More]speak for other machines, but after replacement hardware costs, flying in, and a lost day of work, I've realized that maintaining this infrastructure is not cheap. This made me think if we can make more efficient use of the infrastructure we have available today, and allow builders to use less-powerful machines without increased latency. I've run a few timing tests without AGESA being built, and took historical data to compare build times for when AGESA is included in the build. >From averaging build times on nuclearis2, with a primed page cache and ccache a compete abuild run takes on average, five to six minutes. A build without a useful ccache cache takes around fifteen to twenty minutes (I don't have a reliable way of timing this, hence the high variance). Now, if we build a tree without AGESA, we get the following: First run: [mrnuke@nuclearis2 coreboot]$ ccache -C #clear ccache [mrnuke@nuclearis2 coreboot]$ time CPUS=12 make what-jenkins-does real 6m46.778s Second run: [mrnuke@nuclearis2 coreboot]$ time CPUS=12 make what-jenkins-does real 2m7.889s 7 min vs 20 min on empty ccache, and 2 min vs 6 min on primed ccache. Those are speedups of 2x to 3x. Also note that the local builds were not done on a tmpfs, like the actual jenkins builds. I expect similar speedups on the other builders. The obvious solution is to separate AGESA into its branch. Patch trains from google and other contributions to non-AGESA code gain a 2x to 3x speedup in server time, while users of AGESA can continue to contribute and work on the codebase. Of course, the AGESA branch would also have the non-AGESA boards and code trimmed so as to make efficient use of the server resources. There is some common code, and overlap between the two code paths, but it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as significant as the behemoth that AGESA is. Since 4.2 was just released, we can do this today without much fanare. This also allows other people to donate CPU cycles without needing to own over-priced server-class machines, and without increasing the verification latency (compared to the one today). To anyone saying that putting code in a branch is a death sentence, please don't treat this as TL;DR and read the above paragraphs. Alex [View Less]

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

coreboot November 2015