Cool! I can take care of it if you like. Tentative plan:
Tomorrow push an RC1 for libzmq, then the pr to CZMQ to retire v2 APIs, then the RC1 for CZMQ. If it's all good then a couple days later the finals. I would really like to make it for the debian 9 transition freeze which is Saturday. On Oct 31, 2016 22:23, "Doron Somech" <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, yes, lets do it :) > > On Oct 31, 2016 11:44 PM, "Luca Boccassi" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ping :-) >> >> On Oct 28, 2016 18:48, "Luca Boccassi" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I have sent a solution for the alignment problem that solves the sigbus >>> problem without breaking ABI compat (plus follow-up for VC++ - sorry >>> Windows guys https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/pull/2179 ). >>> >>> I tested the alignment and sigbus problem on x86_64 by enabling >>> alignment check with: >>> >>> __asm__("pushf\norl $0x40000,(%rsp)\npopf"); >>> >>> All was fine. >>> >>> I ran tests built from the zeromq4-1 repository against a shared lib >>> from the head of libzmq repo, and they all run fine minus the >>> ZMQ_REQ_CORRELATE one but that option was borken anyway. >>> >>> This allows us to do a release now, and then when we are ready we can do >>> the ABI breakage, without blocking 4.2. Which is nice since it means it >>> might make it for Debian 9! >>> >>> So, Doron et al, shall we do the bump this weekend? >>> >>> On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 17:12 -0500, Thomas Rodgers wrote: >>> > I will have some time most likely the week of Nov6 (off for a week of >>> C++ >>> > Committee 'fun') to test different message size alternatives. I'll >>> follow >>> > up with my results here for consideration the next time we are >>> inclined to >>> > break the ABI compatibility :) >>> > >>> > On Sunday, October 16, 2016, Brian Knox <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > A new stable version would definitely help me in my quest to get >>> ZeroMQ >>> > > support enabled by default in rsyslog in distros. >>> > > >>> > > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 2:40 PM Doron Somech <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> I say lets bump. >>> > >> >>> > >> On Oct 15, 2016 20:32, "Luca Boccassi" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> As Thomas said, false sharing would be a real issue with 96. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> So given a release is long due, at this point I'd say to drop this >>> for >>> > >>> the moment. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> What do we do for the change to union for zmq_msg_t? Bump ABI >>> version or >>> > >>> not? >>> > >>> >>> > >>> On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 09:53 +0300, Doron Somech wrote: >>> > >>> > No new socket type, I worked at the time on binary message type, >>> might >>> > >>> > complete it sometime, but it is not urgent. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > If there is a lot of performance penalty we can give it up, I >>> will >>> > >>> > find another solution for the Radio-Dish. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > What about 96 bytes? same penalty? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Regarding the binding, I'm not sure. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Luca Boccassi < >>> [email protected]> >>> > >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 09:41 +0300, Doron Somech wrote: >>> > >>> > >> Sorry for the late response, increasing the msg_t structure >>> will be >>> > >>> > >> great, however this will require changing a lot of binding. >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > I think I remember we need it for the new socket types, is that >>> > >>> correct? >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > There is a large performance penalty (intuitively due to not >>> fitting >>> > >>> > > into a single cache line anymore, but haven't ran >>> perf/cachegrind), >>> > >>> and >>> > >>> > > the throughput with vsm type messages goes down by 4% (min) >>> and 20% >>> > >>> > > (max) for TCP, and 36% (min) 38 (max) for inproc, which is >>> quite a >>> > >>> lot, >>> > >>> > > so we need to be sure it's worth it. >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > Regarding the bindings, after a quick search on the Github >>> org, I >>> > >>> could >>> > >>> > > only see: >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > https://github.com/zeromq/lzmq/blob/master/src/lua/lzmq/ >>> > >>> ffi/api.lua#L144 >>> > >>> > > https://github.com/zeromq/clrzmq4/blob/master/lib/zmq.cs#L28 >>> > >>> > > https://github.com/zeromq/pyczmq/blob/master/pyczmq/zmq.py#L >>> 177 >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > Other bindings just import zmq.h. Did I miss any? >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >> Sorry for disappearing, baby and full time job is a lot :-), >>> > >>> hopefully >>> > >>> > >> I'm back... >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > No worries, perfectly understandable :-) >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Luca Boccassi < >>> > >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >> > Sorry, I meant if we go with (1), not (2), we might bump >>> the size >>> > >>> as >>> > >>> > >> > well, since we are already doing another ABI-breaking >>> change. >>> > >>> > >> > >>> > >>> > >> > I agree on the solution as well. >>> > >>> > >> > >>> > >>> > >> > On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 17:12 +0200, Pieter Hintjens wrote: >>> > >>> > >> >> I'm confused between the (1) and (2) choices, and can't >>> see where >>> > >>> > >> >> bumping the message size fits. >>> > >>> > >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> Nonetheless, I think bumping the size, fixing the alignment >>> > >>> issues, >>> > >>> > >> >> and bumping the ABI version is the best solution here. >>> > >>> > >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Luca Boccassi < >>> > >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >> >> > I've given some more thoughts and testing to the >>> alignment >>> > >>> issue. I can >>> > >>> > >> >> > reproduce the problem by enabling alignment checks on >>> x86 too. >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > But most importantly, I think we cannot get away from >>> bumping >>> > >>> the ABI >>> > >>> > >> >> > with this fix, however we rearrange it, simply because >>> > >>> applications need >>> > >>> > >> >> > to be rebuilt against the new header to be fixed. A >>> simple >>> > >>> rebuild of >>> > >>> > >> >> > the libzmq.so is not enough. And the way to do this is >>> to bump >>> > >>> the ABI >>> > >>> > >> >> > so that distros can schedule transitions and rebuilds >>> and so >>> > >>> on. >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > So the choice list is now restricted to: >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > 1) Bump ABI >>> > >>> > >> >> > 2) Revert the fix and leave everything broken on sparc64 >>> and >>> > >>> some >>> > >>> > >> >> > aarch64 (rpi3 seems not to be affected, must depend on >>> the SoC >>> > >>> flavour) >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > If we go with 2, we might as well get 2 birds with one >>> stone >>> > >>> and bump >>> > >>> > >> >> > the zmq_msg_t size to 128 as we have talked about in the >>> past. >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Doron, this would help with the new UDP based socket >>> types >>> > >>> right? >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Pros of bumping msg size: >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > - we can get rid of the malloc() in the lmsg type case >>> as all >>> > >>> the data >>> > >>> > >> >> > will fit >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Cons: >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > - for the vsm/cmsg type cases (for most architectures >>> anyway) >>> > >>> it won't >>> > >>> > >> >> > fit anymore into a single cacheline >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Given all this, I'd say we should go for it. >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > Opinions? >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > On Sat, 2016-08-13 at 16:59 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Hello, >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Trying to give some thoughts again on the libzmq 4.2 >>> release. >>> > >>> It's >>> > >>> > >> >> >> really long overdue! >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> The main issue from my point of view is this change: >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/commit/ >>> > >>> d9fb1d36ff2008966af538f722a1f4ab158dbf64 >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> -typedef struct zmq_msg_t {unsigned char _ [64];} >>> zmq_msg_t; >>> > >>> > >> >> >> +/* union here ensures correct alignment on >>> architectures >>> > >>> that require >>> > >>> > >> >> >> it, e.g. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> + * SPARC >>> > >>> > >> >> >> + */ >>> > >>> > >> >> >> +typedef union zmq_msg_t {unsigned char _ [64]; void >>> *p; } >>> > >>> zmq_msg_t; >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> This is flagged by the common ABI checkers tools as an >>> ABI >>> > >>> breakage >>> > >>> > >> >> >> (see: http://abi-laboratory.pro/trac >>> ker/timeline/zeromq/ ). >>> > >>> And it makes >>> > >>> > >> >> >> sense from this point of view: if some applications on >>> some >>> > >>> > >> >> >> architectures are broken due to wrong alignment, they >>> would >>> > >>> need to be >>> > >>> > >> >> >> rebuilt, and the way to ensure that is to bump the ABI >>> > >>> "current" digit >>> > >>> > >> >> >> to make sure maintainers do a rebuild. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> On the other hand, signaling an ABI breakage is a pain, >>> and a >>> > >>> cause of >>> > >>> > >> >> >> major churn for packagers and maintainers. It means for >>> > >>> example a new >>> > >>> > >> >> >> package has to be created (eg: libzmq5 -> libzmq6), and >>> a >>> > >>> transition has >>> > >>> > >> >> >> to be started and all reverse dependencies need to be >>> > >>> rebuilt. And if >>> > >>> > >> >> >> this is pointless for all save a few corner cases (eg >>> SPARC64 >>> > >>> as for >>> > >>> > >> >> >> above) it's all quite frustrating. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> So we have a choice to make before we release 4.2, four >>> > >>> possibilities as >>> > >>> > >> >> >> far as I can see: >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 1) Ignore the ABI checkers and get yelled at by >>> maintainers >>> > >>> and >>> > >>> > >> >> >> packagers. Also the SPARC64 users will most likely NOT >>> get >>> > >>> their bug >>> > >>> > >> >> >> fixed >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 2) Bump ABI revision to 6 and get yelled at by >>> maintainers >>> > >>> and packagers >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 3) Revert the above change and postpone it to when we >>> have a >>> > >>> more >>> > >>> > >> >> >> generally useful reason to break ABI (bump zmq_msg_t >>> from 64 >>> > >>> to 128 >>> > >>> > >> >> >> bytes for example, Doron?) >>> > >>> > >> >> >> 4) Try to be clever and revert the above change and use >>> > >>> something like >>> > >>> > >> >> >> #pragma pack(8). This will fool the ABI checkers (I >>> tried >>> > >>> it), and given >>> > >>> > >> >> >> that typedef is only used externally to allocate the >>> right >>> > >>> size it >>> > >>> > >> >> >> shouldn't actually affect anything, apart from the >>> users of >>> > >>> SPARC64 >>> > >>> > >> >> >> which should get the bugfix with this too. This is very >>> > >>> sneaky :-) >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> CC'ing Lazslo, the Debian maintainer, given what we >>> choose to >>> > >>> do might >>> > >>> > >> >> >> result in a lot of work for him :-) >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Opinions? >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Kind regards, >>> > >>> > >> >> >> Luca Boccassi >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> On Tue, 2016-05-03 at 10:39 +0200, Pieter Hintjens >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > I'm just throwing some ideas on the table. We have a >>> good >>> > >>> package of >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > work on master and it's probably time to make a 4.2 >>> release. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > Luca has already back-ported the enable/disable draft >>> > >>> design from >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > zproject (CZMQ et al). Yay! So we can now release >>> stable >>> > >>> master >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > safely, while continuing to refine and extend the >>> draft API >>> > >>> sections. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > I propose: >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - to end with the stable fork policy; this was needed >>> years >>> > >>> ago when >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > we had massively unstable masters. It's no longer a >>> problem. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - to use the github release function for libzmq >>> releases >>> > >>> and deprecate >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > the separate delivery of tarballs. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - we aim to make a 4.2.0 rc asap, then fix any issues >>> we >>> > >>> get, with >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > patch releases as usual. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - we backport the release function to older maintained >>> > >>> releases (4.1, >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > 3.2) so that their tarballs are provided by github >>> instead >>> > >>> of >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > downloads.zeromq.org. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > Problems: >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - this will break a few things that depend on >>> > >>> downloads.zeromq.org. To >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > be fixed as we go. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > - github tarballs are not identical to source >>> tarballs, >>> > >>> particularly >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > they lack `configure`. I propose changing our >>> autotools >>> > >>> build >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > instructions so they always start with `./autogen,sh` >>> no >>> > >>> matter where >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > the sources come from. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > I think this will work and also let us gracefully >>> > >>> deprecate/switch off >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > the downloads box. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > -Pieter >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > [email protected] >>> > >>> > >> >> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >>> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> > >>> > >> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list >>> > >>> > >> >> > [email protected] >>> > >>> > >> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>> > >>> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> > >>> > >> >> zeromq-dev mailing list >>> > >>> > >> >> [email protected] >>> > >>> > >> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>> > >>> > >> > >>> > >>> > >> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> > >> zeromq-dev mailing list >>> > >> [email protected] >>> > >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>> > > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > zeromq-dev mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >>> >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
