bug#61009: closed ([PATCH] Building Icecat and jemalloc on aarch64-linux)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 02 Mar 2023 10:07:17 +0000
with message-id <877cvzv4fe.fsf@cbaines.net>
and subject line Re: [bug#61009] [PATCH] Building Icecat and jemalloc on 
aarch64-linux
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #61009,
regarding [PATCH] Building Icecat and jemalloc on aarch64-linux
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
61009: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=61009
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems

--- Begin Message --- Subject: [PATCH] Building Icecat and jemalloc on aarch64-linux Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2023 21:06:43 +0100 User-agent: mu4e 1.8.13; emacs 29.0.50

Hi Guix,

I'm trying to build Icecat on an aarch64-linux based Guix system. I got it
working with the patches attached to this mail. I would like to include this
into Guix but I am not sure about the following issues:

1. jemalloc

I'm using the kernel configuration from the Asahi Linux project which uses 16K
as the kernel page size. Because of this I get an "Unsupported system page
size" error from the jemalloc package when building Icecat.

I fixed this issue by setting the page size in the jemalloc package to 16K,
when building for an aarch64-linux system. I got this from the PKGBUILD [1] of
ARM Arch Linux.

I'm new to ARM and now I'm wondering:

- What is the default kernel page size on an aarch64-linux system?

- If there is none, is there one that is most commonly used?

- Why does ARM Arch Linux default to 16K and should we too?

- Which kernel page size is used on CI to build jemalloc and Icecat on the
  aarch64-linux builders?

- Did Icecat ever built on aarch64-linux on CI?

I also updated the version of jemalloc to 5.3.0, because I thought they also
addressed this issue for my particular aarch64-linux system [2]. This new
version sets the page size also to 16K, but only when building for an
aarch64-apple-darwin system, and not for aarch64-linux systems. So I'm not
sure only updating the version would fix the kernel page size issue here.

More than 5000 packages depend on jemalloc, so this should probably go into
the core-updates branch? The changes to jemalloc caused my world to rebuild
locally, but I ended up with a working Icecat.

2. Disable EME on aarch64-linux

I removed the --disable-eme option on aarch64-linux because the configure
script failed an error saying this option is not supported on this
architecture. Since EME stands for Encrypted Media Extensions and is a
JavaScript API for playing DRMed video content in HTML, I'm not sure if this
is ok, or what to best do here?

Could someone please review the patches and give me some advice on how to
proceed with these issues?

Thanks, Roman.

[1] https://archlinuxarm.org/packages/aarch64/jemalloc/files/PKGBUILD
[2] https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/blob/dev/configure.ac#L1733

0001-gnu-jemalloc-Update-to-5.3.0.patch
Description: Text Data

0002-gnu-jemalloc-Build-with-large-page-size-on-aarch64.patch
Description: Text Data

0003-gnu-icecat-Fix-disable-eme-option-on-aarch64.patch
Description: Text Data

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: [bug#61009] [PATCH] Building Icecat and jemalloc on aarch64-linux Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 10:07:17 +0000 User-agent: mu4e 1.8.13; emacs 28.2

Roman Scherer <roman.scherer@burningswell.com> writes:

> Hi Christopher,
>
> thanks for applying the patch and for the explanation.
>
> Not sure what you meant by "missed". But, I sent an improved version of
> the jemalloc patches as a separate issue a while ago. They are here:
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/2023-02/msg00698.html
>
> Without the jemalloc patches, Icecat and all other packages using
> jemalloc crash with the error `<jemalloc>: Unsupported system page size`
> on aarch64 systems that run with kernel page sizes > 4K.
>
> If you are familiar with this, I could need some help here as well ;)

Sending the jemalloc patch seperately sounds good. I'm going to mark
this issue as done since that's tracked separately.

I've replied to that separate issue, but I think that these changes may
already be in place on core-updates. I'm going to have a go at merging
master in to core-updates which should allow for testing icecat in
core-updates with the changes I've merged in master.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---