17:00:01 <nirik> #startmeeting
17:00:10 <nirik> #meetingtopic FESCo Meeting
17:00:21 <nirik> #meetingname fesco
17:00:28 <nirik> #chair bpepple dgilmore dwmw2 jwb notting nirik sharkcz jds2001 j-rod
17:00:39 <nirik> who all is here for the fesco meeting?
17:00:55 * sharkcz is here
17:00:57 * bpepple is here.
17:01:00 * jnovy is here
17:01:05 * j-rod waves
17:01:13 * subfusc points on nirik
17:01:40 * notting is here
17:02:11 <nirik> ok, I guess we can go ahead and get started...
17:02:15 <nirik> #topic Feature: F12X86Support - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F12X86Support
17:02:26 <nirik> notting: care to introduce this?
17:02:43 <notting> sure
17:03:13 <notting> back when we did i586 for F-11, we agreed in a FESCo vote to do i586 for F-11 and i686 likely for F-12. i was asked to write up the feature last week, so i did
17:03:31 <notting> the original feature specified a minimum of a SSE-2 capable cpu. it was ... not received well.
17:03:42 <bpepple> notting: yeah, I noticed. ;)
17:03:57 <nirik> so, what does moving from i586 -> i686 really buy us? dropping old stuff we don't want to support?
17:04:02 <notting> so the current proposal is to just built for basic i686-class CPUs, but optimize for Atom, as it's the currently available model
17:04:25 <notting> nirik: 1-2% performance in benchmarks, fewer kernel builds
17:04:27 * nirik has to step away for just a min. back in a minute.
17:04:42 <nirik> but is it really? it would be i686 instead of i586? so same #?
17:05:30 <j-rod> we also make the compiler guys happier
17:05:42 <notting> nirik: no, we build separate i586 and i686 kernel packages ATM
17:06:04 <j-rod> notting: we build kernel.i586 and kernel-PAE.i686
17:06:08 <j-rod> (iirc)
17:06:17 <notting> according to uli, the -march=i686 code paths are more tested that -march=i586
17:06:29 <notting> for base i686, the geode in the XO still works
17:06:56 <notting> the one potentially relevant CPU that we would be dropping support for is the Via C3
17:07:06 <j-rod> so yeah, no less kernels built, we don't have a kernel.i686 atm
17:07:45 <davej> notting: one possibility, is that someone once did a patch to provide cmov emulation for userspace.
17:07:53 <j-rod> my only c3 board has cmov. everyone else be damned.
17:08:00 <notting> j-rod: less builds, i.e. not tying up two build machines. also, shared debuginfo-common
17:08:05 <notting> j-rod: ...? are you sure it's not a c5
17:08:29 <j-rod> ah, yes, there's slightly less build output then...
17:08:38 <j-rod> pretty sure its a c3
17:08:39 <davej> the later C3's had cmov (nehemiah steppings onwards iirc)
17:08:42 <j-rod> Via Nehemiah
17:09:22 <davej> the older ones were used in those epia and other mini-itx boards a lot though.
17:09:26 <j-rod> (the board is actually sitting on the shelf in my cube, its way too slow to be worth playing with when you're spoiled w/quad-core stuff...)
17:10:10 <j-rod> mine's an epia mini-itx as well, but yeah, I know plenty of the earlier ones had no cmov
17:10:23 <notting> davej: is the cmov emulation patch slow-as-molasses?
17:10:56 <davej> notting: you're using a c3, speed isn't really your concern.
17:11:01 <j-rod> ...but faster than not working at all
17:11:46 <notting> one other thing: the benefits do rely on a mass rebuild. jwb, f13 - you had concerns? (this applies to the later xz feature as well)
17:12:00 <davej> sidenote: I thought I read somewhere that gcc doesn't emit cmov's when tuned for atom because it's not a perf win any more?
17:12:13 <notting> davej:  uno momento
17:13:25 <notting> davej: one of my test binaries shows 73 cmov instructions for -mtune=atom
17:13:43 <davej> ok
17:15:30 <bpepple> anyone have any other questions/concerns?
17:15:32 <notting> if someone wants the raw data that went into my numbers, http://notting.fedorapeople.org/benchfu.gnumeric. ignore the openssl numbers, they're not a valid benchmark
17:16:25 <f13> notting: I had concerns with fitting in a every package rebuild within the F12 cycle
17:16:42 <f13> or an every package with arch change rebuild
17:16:55 <j-rod> start now
17:16:56 <j-rod> :)
17:17:17 <f13> since we dropped the point release previously known as alpha this is less of a concern
17:17:21 <f13> but still a lot of bit shuffle
17:17:27 <notting> the executive summary is: -mtune=atom is a win for both i586 and i686 on atom, and a (small) loss on other cpus. -march=i686 is a win on all CPUs except for P4
17:18:41 <notting> atom scheduling actually helps p4
17:18:51 <notting> (although that may be noise)
17:19:06 <notting> f13: the mass rebuild for f11 took... one week?
17:19:25 <f13> technically it's still not done
17:19:31 <f13> there are things which haven't been rebuilt.
17:19:48 <f13> but yes, the scripted part was less than a week
17:19:51 <notting> erm, ok. i mean, 'the automated part for packages that aren't broken' :)
17:21:08 <f13> yeah
17:21:42 <f13> depending on the status of the CVS server that will either go quicker for F12, or I need to work on better threading of the script to create the builds
17:21:47 <f13> CVS was the limiting factor
17:22:02 <notting> davej: was your mentioning of a cmov emulation patch a statement of willingness to do the integration of it? >:)
17:24:37 <notting> <crickets>
17:25:37 <bpepple> is there any other questions, or are we ready to vote on this proposal?
17:26:06 * sharkcz has no questions
17:26:24 <j-rod> I got nothin'.
17:26:27 <bpepple> +1 to F12X86Support proposal.
17:26:46 <sharkcz> +1
17:26:49 <j-rod> +1
17:27:21 <bpepple> nirik, notting, dgilmore, jwb: ?
17:27:50 <notting> +1
17:27:59 * notting will help with the rebuild script if necessary
17:29:11 * bpepple wonders if we have a majority of FESCo present.
17:29:18 <j-rod> I'd offer to help w/the cmov emu support, but its probably over my head...
17:29:43 <notting> j-rod: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0206.3/0631.html is probably the start
17:29:44 * j-rod hasn't paid a lot of attention to assembly since working on a z-80 ~10 years ago
17:30:18 <notting> j-rod: although there's also some sort of cmov emulation in the kvm code?
17:30:32 <nirik9999> sigh. My laptop blew up totally. Sorry for dropping off.
17:30:38 * notting notes dgilmore and jwb may not be here
17:30:59 <bpepple> nirik9999: we're voting on the x86support proposal.  we've got 4 '+1'.
17:31:24 <nirik9999> so, I was going to ask... what does this really get us?
17:31:45 <j-rod> notting: oy. that's painful to read... wonder what kvm's looks like...
17:31:45 <nirik9999> can't we just stick with i586 for now and get more people to just go to x86_64?
17:32:14 * nirik9999 's proxy might reconnect in a minute and I can read scrollback.
17:33:05 <j-rod> we get a decrease in complexity
17:33:18 <j-rod> no i586 and i686 openssl and friends, just i686
17:33:32 <j-rod> 32-bit x86 kernels all built in a single pass (so shared debuginfo)
17:34:00 <j-rod> we use better tested -march=i686 codepaths
17:34:18 * bpepple notes he has a hard stop at 25 minutes.
17:34:22 * nirik reads backscroll
17:34:52 <wwoods> don't forget the minor (but significant) speed increases
17:35:16 <nirik> I'm really not sure this buys us enough, but on the other hand, I doubt we have many i586 users left...
17:35:52 <nirik> ok, I guess I am +1 on it... noting that anyone that really objects should work to form a i586 secondary arch...(we want to allow that right?)
17:36:17 <notting> i'm all for willing secondary arch teams
17:37:52 <nirik> ok, so is that enough to pass it? let me look.
17:38:04 <bpepple> nirik: we're at 5 '+1'.
17:38:07 <nirik> yeah, +5 it looks like.
17:38:10 <notting> nirik: that's 5 +1s from the 5 members here
17:38:37 <nirik> ok, thats enough to pass it, but do we want to give those not present a chance to weigh in?
17:38:50 <nirik> also, is this the last fesco meeting with the current lineup?
17:39:00 <j-rod> nirik: there's also the cmov emu patch option, which I *think* would at least make things still functional for most i586 users
17:39:00 <bpepple> nirik: the schedule was published, and there were no replies as far as I'm aware.
17:39:29 <nirik> j-rod: just slower?
17:39:30 <davej> j-rod: I think that's worth investigating (and possibly trying to get upstream if it works out)
17:39:40 <nirik> bpepple: true. ok.
17:39:50 <j-rod> nirik: yeah
17:40:00 <j-rod> davej: yeah, definitely
17:40:02 <bpepple> nirik: there was also the thread on devel. ;)
17:40:08 <nirik> yeah, thats worth persuing.
17:40:14 <nirik> ok, so this is approved.
17:40:17 <j-rod> if we can still support i586 w/just a patch vs. an entire secondary arch...
17:40:23 <j-rod> seems worthwhile
17:40:32 <nirik> #agreed The feature is approved.
17:40:37 <nirik> j-rod: totally.
17:40:50 <davej> j-rod: just need to find a machine without cmov to test it on :)
17:40:51 <nirik> #topic Feature: NFSClientIPv6 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NFSClientIPv6
17:40:57 <nirik> .fesco 168
17:41:02 <zodbot> nirik: #168 (Feature: NFSClientIPv6 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NFSClientIPv6) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/168
17:41:14 <nirik> davej: all of my went to recycling early this year. ;)
17:41:32 <j-rod> davej: yeah, there would be that... the most slothful thing I have here is my c3, but its got cmov...
17:42:01 <notting> this seems fine. i don't like the 'need a opensolaris server to test against', but i understand it
17:42:02 <davej> j-rod: I might still something ancient somewhere. will need to go digging
17:43:03 <jlayton> notting: I'm working on the linux server now, but it's not completely there yet
17:43:17 <jlayton> mostly waiting on chuck lever to finish overhauling rpc.statd
17:43:26 <nirik> yeah, this feature sounds fine to me. Not sure it's something most people will notice or care about tho
17:43:44 * notting is +1
17:44:03 <nirik> +1 here
17:44:07 <sharkcz> +1, being IPv6 ready is good thing
17:44:12 <bpepple> +1
17:44:15 <jlayton> nirik: not at the moment no, but hey solaris has had ipv6 support for 10 years or so, so we might as well get on board ;)
17:44:18 <j-rod> +1, ipv6 will be relevant some day. right? ... :)
17:44:29 <jlayton> hehe...
17:44:39 <notting> probably about the time the ipv8 spec is released
17:45:14 <nirik> ok, so thats 5 +1's
17:45:23 <nirik> #agreed This feature is approved.
17:45:30 * jlayton cheers
17:45:31 <jlayton> thx!
17:45:32 <nirik> #topic Feature: XZRpmPayloads - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XZRpmPayloads
17:45:44 <nirik> .fesco 169
17:45:47 <zodbot> nirik: #169 (Feature: XZRpmPayloads - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XZRpmPayloads) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/169
17:45:54 <nirik> thanks for coming jlayton. Sorry it was so short and boring. ;)
17:46:16 <jlayton> nirik: meh, no worries I hadn't attended one of these before
17:46:29 <ixs> a request about that feature:
17:46:42 <ixs> I'd really like to see step 6 (complete rebuild of the distro) dropped.
17:47:08 <wwoods> that kind of, uh, defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
17:47:15 <nirik> I wonder how this affects presto/deltas?
17:47:20 <ixs> as rpm is backward compatible and sitll understands the old compression we can just have the whole distro roll over "naturally" or wait for the next glibc rebuild to require a bump.
17:47:21 <bpepple> ixs: we're probably going to doing a rebuild anyhow due to the x86support feature.
17:47:27 <nirik> and is the format finally stable?
17:47:51 <notting> nirik: deltarpm will need some work
17:47:57 <notting> but yes, the file format is stable
17:48:27 <nirik> I'm glad to see f10 rpm should support this too...
17:48:29 <ixs> notting: the xz format, not the lzma format, right? Just so that we're clear.
17:48:33 <notting> ixs: yes
17:48:36 <nirik> but then there are the el machines/builders/etc
17:48:42 <jnovy> nirik: yup, the fileformat specsare final, upstream sais it won't change
17:48:56 <jnovy> s/sais/says/
17:48:58 <notting> nirik: for el, you'd set the same flags you'd set for hases
17:49:02 <notting> erm, 'hashes'
17:49:32 <notting> i.e., for an EL-compatible rpm, you set two macros instead of one.
17:49:51 <nirik> yeah.
17:50:03 <bpepple> test section should probably include testing that deltas work.
17:50:34 <notting> added
17:51:21 <bpepple> +1 to XZRpmPayloads feature.
17:51:41 <sharkcz> +1
17:51:42 <nirik> +1 here, it seems fine... the sooner it lands the better as always.
17:51:49 <nirik> it may even speed up deltas...
17:52:29 <j-rod> +1
17:52:50 <notting> +1
17:52:58 <nirik> ok, +1, this feature is approved.
17:53:06 <nirik> #agreed This feature is approved.
17:53:13 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
17:53:25 <nirik> Thats all I had on the agenda... anyone have additional items?
17:53:30 <notting> #action notting - work with rel-eng around scheduling of potential mass rebuild for fedora 12
17:54:48 <notting> nirik: today we removed mcepl from sponsors, at his request. he had no sponsorees.
17:54:49 <nirik> I guess this is the last meeting with this fesco? I'd like to say it's been fun to work with all you guys. ;)
17:55:23 * bpepple wonders what it will be like not having to attend a FESCo meeting? ;)
17:56:47 <notting> when specifically are they announcing the results?
17:57:03 <nirik> yeah, sounds good... if someone doesn't want to be a sponsor they should feel free to step back. ;)
17:57:09 <nirik> not sure.
17:57:46 <nirik> Oh, I got an email from the gnaughty packager... he wanted fesco to address that package, but it's still blocking FE_LEGAL, so I thought we would wait until spot was back and specifically sent it to fesco.
17:58:13 <bpepple> nirik: that sounds good.
17:58:14 <notting> sounds reasonable. (i don't think it's a fesco issue)
17:58:43 <nirik> ok, if no one has anything else I will go ahead and close things out in 60seconds.
17:59:00 <notting> one more thing
17:59:09 * nirik waits for notting
17:59:14 <notting> who is responsible for doing the housekeeping for added & removed fesco members after the elections?
17:59:27 <notting> (group, mailing list, etc.)
17:59:29 <bpepple> notting: on the fesco page.  usually the chair.
17:59:47 <bpepple> I can do it as a leaving gift.
18:00:04 <nirik> :)
18:00:07 <notting> heh, ok
18:00:14 <nirik> bpepple: I hope you will continue to be active in fedora...
18:00:53 <bpepple> nirik: I will, though I haven't had much free time the last 6 months or so.
18:01:01 <Southern_Gentlem> i hope bpepple will make an appearance at OLF
18:01:01 <nirik> yeah, time is always an issue. ;(
18:01:10 <nirik> ok, will go ahead and close out in 60
18:01:14 <bpepple> Southern_Gentlem: plan to be there.
18:02:12 <nirik> #endmeeting