From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
To: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Cc: nd@arm.com
Subject: Re: aarch64: add HWCAP_ATOMICS to HWCAP_IMPORTANT
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 15:27:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2e1e5171-1014-43e5-ead2-71a9f1fcc54b@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <02df4e53-258f-ea9c-1381-4420061f7031@arm.com>
On 04/19/2018 01:06 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> if these paths are for optimization only then i guess the list
> can change between libc releases without causing issues other
> than performance regressions.
There is a "full lifecycle" cost to turning on multilibs.
In RPM transactions the new libraries are installed and then the old
libraries are removed.
This means that you can have an old multilib'd library present in the
middle of the install, and if you are deprecating the multilib, the
remaining library will be the old one, it may be loaded, and may not
work correctly.
Consider this case:
* Add lse/ search dir if 8.1 LSE.
* Deploy multilibs.
* Deprecate multilib because performance is good enough by default and
you want to stop paying for the build/test/qe costs of two builds.
* Remove multilibs.
At this point all multilib'd packages must deploy a "<package>_post_upgrade"
application which erases all known multilib'd files to avoid loading a
mixed lse/ library with a newer set of libraries. We do this in
glibc via glibc_post_upgrade.c in Fedora [1].
One alternative is to deprecate the lse/ search dir immediately in ld.so,
which is not always desirable because some applications may still be
relying on it to load/operate correctly.
So think carefully before turn on multilibs. The additional verification
and deployment costs should not be ignored.
As a reference, presently in Fedora for POWER we have 4 x ppc64be multilibs,
and only 1 x ppc64le multilib. This is relatively under control because the
ISAs are nested well and Fedora has all POWER8 builders (the latest multilib).
--
Cheers,
Carlos.
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc/blob/master/f/glibc_post_upgrade.c
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-30 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-19 11:51 Szabolcs Nagy
2018-04-19 14:38 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2018-04-19 17:07 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2018-04-19 19:25 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2018-04-30 15:27 ` Carlos O'Donell [this message]
2018-04-19 16:08 ` Steve Ellcey
2018-04-19 16:58 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2018-04-30 15:34 ` Carlos O'Donell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2e1e5171-1014-43e5-ead2-71a9f1fcc54b@redhat.com \
--to=carlos@redhat.com \
--cc=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).