From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75C2D158094 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 14:03:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7AF43E07EE; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 14:03:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pj1-x1031.google.com (mail-pj1-x1031.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1031]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24928E07EE for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 14:03:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-x1031.google.com with SMTP id t2-20020a17090a4e4200b001f21572f3a4so14795445pjl.0 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 07:03:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-disposition:mime-version:message-id:subject:to:from:date :from:to:cc; bh=cG4gl/WU1dt+g/hqdeYmy+jLylYCW1itqOvjqMVSxvE=; b=FQruQUvkeKBR/3PJJa7JSeltsuXiWL3XdPpzw720LB1b1LeKmVjIGtFuh5dJE3HIMv hACKOs2dhr+efrkPESSr1B4xqQsKh9kPvXtwPUrw871KBxko6L+fEDtN7wdSsFdhVrRD ieurXyCMMnqD7nvbxR4NUVIPL7Yq4PgTOGWpHb589UhFxPkpALhyMM4gnv/CQaxVjRoN X3CN4M3YUxNS4fiQvA/ZJK00EZgeiRqxkDoa5phOJiv2kPpYwDrvAPTyy9ML226V3BXq iDjCmGE5Ipqpyiw+WmCL/QTmeDm8cs1X4jVEkgEmTzW8WDH0MMzRXVsgJ9P51f/kdzcJ B7eQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-disposition:mime-version:message-id:subject:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=cG4gl/WU1dt+g/hqdeYmy+jLylYCW1itqOvjqMVSxvE=; b=U0NeSLBE1dfZRI0etClgjOXdIELc060sewZxABwktYH5g1zEVXZyh3Y/aeuMnenSJT 0806LGCEPb9X1vUPZPz/1ufzVilWoFCfq26Onp6YM4VD6xBkTi3c70GPFtDyljZgyPwA vXro/VBGjtxX1goKR5k5PMMSanKPe59VoH0ACNMGhFCoREIUT3aDVXW5vk/GGkqAhWtb B2uGYzZxDavyJTuRYocC4GY8gXjyro9PhjwJxVf/RAwWceZMC/k63r7tU0oaGSxlH/h1 whNCmwqVR5HlstDUkogscgnIvLFgdjthjfzz441bB4O+vfBfxM3xzgMvIMg47Xb0xsTY SYRg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo39qPIFkxHWSsapnoI8rfdHy7il74lq2155Cz3LUeFBMPdXF3P/ hdauEEQsljL7/pP7WC6J26MqjQsiiB95LA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4Vdg+Jiqf1C02XkjqRzbVvRSkWRIB1QfNeIu/7ch62f5Wat2C9RGxvq67iBAyilLrJXw05Og== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c184:b0:172:ecca:8d1d with SMTP id d4-20020a170902c18400b00172ecca8d1dmr9090603pld.154.1661263389074; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 07:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (49.212.183.201.v6.sakura.ne.jp. [2403:3a00:202:1120:49:212:183:201]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l4-20020a170903244400b00172cdcdc183sm1523946pls.93.2022.08.23.07.03.07 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 23 Aug 2022 07:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 22:03:05 +0800 From: wuyy To: gentoo-soc Subject: [gentoo-soc] Week 10 Report for Refining ROCm Packages in Gentoo Message-ID: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline X-Archives-Salt: 5f3acacf-a7b9-40e0-bf85-3de2101214cf X-Archives-Hash: 1f0e1ce3f3faea1c587d94cf6def11a9 Hello all, Sorry for the late report. I have been busy last week, so the actual progress is slower than expected. This week I have leant a lot from Ulrich's comments on rocm.eclass. I polished the eclass to v3 and send to gentoo-dev mailing list. However, I observed another error introduced in v3, and I'll include a fix for it in the v4 in the following days. Another half of my time is spent on testing sci-libs/roc-* packages on various platforms, utilizing rocm.eclass. I can say that rocm.eclass did its job as expected, so I believe after v4 it can be merged. With src_test enabled, I have found various test failures. rocBLAS-5.1.3 fails 3 tests on Radeon RX 6700XT, slightly exceeding tolerance, which seems not a big issue; rocFFT-5.1.3 fails 16 suites on Radeon VII [1], which is serious and confirmed by upstream, so I suggest masking amdgpu_targets_gfx906 USE flag for rocFFT-5.1.3; just today I observe MIOpen is failing many tests, probably due to vanilla clang. I'll open issues and report those test failures to upstream. Running tests suite takes a lot of time, and often drain the GPU. It may takes more than 15 hours testing rocBLAS, even on performant CPU like Ryzen 5950X. If I use the GPU to render graphics (run a desktop environment) and do test simultaneously, it often result in amdgpu driver failure. I hope one day we can have a testing farm for ROCm packages, but that would be expensive because there are a lot of GPU architectures, and the compilation takes a lot of time. I planned to finish the draft of wiki pages [2,3], but turns out I'm running out of time. I'll catch up in week 11. My mentor is also busy in week 10, so my PR about rocm-opencl-runtime is still pending for review. Now we are working on solving the dependency issue of ROCm packages -- gcc-12 and gcc-11.3.0 incompatibilities. Due to two bugs, the current stable gcc, gcc-11.3.0 cannot compile some ROCm packages [4], and the current unstable gcc, gcc-12, is unable to compile nearly all ROCm packages [5]. I'll continue to do what's postponed in week 10 -- landing rocm.eclass and sci-libs packages, preparing cupy, fixing bugs, and writing the wiki pages. I'll investigate MIOpen's situation as well. [1] https://github.com/ROCmSoftwarePlatform/rocFFT/issues/369 [2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ROCm [3] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/HIP [4] https://bugs.gentoo.org/842405 [5] https://bugs.gentoo.org/857660 Yours, -- Yiyang Wu