On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 14:46:31 -0400 Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote: > 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. is there a place where the plans can be tracked? I am sure many HW/CPU vendors are or would be interested in zlib-ng replacing zlib. Dan