[CentOS-devel] Proposal: CentOS x86 SIG

Wed Mar 15 18:46:31 UTC 2023
Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 1:37 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * Josh Boyer:
>
> > We discussed this at the CentOS Board meeting last week and generally
> > agreed with the overall idea of the SIG.  There were two main
> > questions that came up:
> >
> > 1) What is the contribution model the SIG is envisioning?  How will
> > people be able to participate in the SIG?
> >
> > Could you add this to the proposal?
>
> I don't have a live document for the proposal right now.
>
> The general CentOS collaboration mechanism is a bit unclear to me, to be
> honest.  It doesn't seem to be like Fedora, where anyone can create an
> account and try to get a package into the distribution.  Not that this
> is something I expect as part of this effort; the focus should be on
> building existing stuff in new and exciting ways.
>
> Anyway, here are some concrete items for collaboration:
>
> I hope that performance experts will be able to share benchmarking
> results based on the optimized builds the SIG produces, and investigate
> glitches we encounter.  Any kind of testing will help.
>
> Some packages will fail to build with -march=x86-64-v3.  Triaging these
> failures, reporting them upstream etc., will be required, and that part
> does not require any special privileges (as long as the build logs and
> buildroots are public, which I expect them to be).
>
> We would benefit from expert guidance on GCC parameter defaults, like
> preferred vector sizes for certain operations.
>
> Once we explore delivery mechanisms, exploring how builds can be
> consumed by end users in custom CI systems etc., and feedback on that
> will be helpful.
>
> Do you think this provides some clarification?
>
> > 2) There are existing Intel people working in the Hyperscaler SIG on
> > some optimized libraries.  How would the Hyperscaler SIG coordinate
> > with the X86 SIG in this regard?  There is a desire to share work and
> > not duplicate effort.
>
> Is it more than just zlib?
>
>   <https://cbs.centos.org/koji/packages?tagID=2620>
>
> zlib upstream doesn't take architecture optimization patches, and
> maintaining the downstream patches (some of them are in CentOS proper
> already) is an ongoing hassle.
>

zlib-ng does, and the guy working on the zlib package in Hyperscale is
interested in proposing switching Fedora's zlib implementation to
zlib-ng partly for that reason. Another alternative is using zstd as a
zlib replacement, which we're also considering for a proposal to Fedora.

> I've looked at
>
>   <https://sigs.centos.org/hyperscale/content/repositories/main/>
>
> That seems to be focus on CentoS 8 Stream.  The package versions in 9
> are actually higher than what's mentioned there.
>

We definitely have stuff in CentOS Stream 9, that page needs to be
updated to reflect that it's in CentOS Stream 9 too. But a lot of the
backport work has been pushed into CentOS Stream 9 itself rather than
forking packages, in large part to the less awful contribution
process.

We just released a bunch of updated content for CentOS Stream 9 in the
past couple of weeks even.





--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!