[ofiwg] libfabric releases, stable branches, and DL providers

Hefty, Sean sean.hefty at intel.com
Tue Aug 11 10:03:11 PDT 2020


A possible future step is to create what I'll call a core+ provider.  This would be a single provider that contains both core + utility provider functionality, merged into a single provider.

Otherwise, we could end up debugging 3 or more components of different versions (e.g. libfabric, verbs, rxm, rxd), rather than just 2. 

- Sean


> One potential issue: If a change in a provider requires a change in another provider
> (core and utility). I'm making an assumption that utility providers would also follow a
> similar model. It could be difficult to synchronize, but probably not terribly so.
> Issues like this create a dependency that is difficult to track when providers are
> released independently.
> 
> --
> James Swaro
> P: +1 (651) 605-9000
> 
> ´╗┐On 8/3/20, 2:50 PM, "ofiwg on behalf of Hefty, Sean" <ofiwg-
> bounces at lists.openfabrics.org on behalf of sean.hefty at intel.com> wrote:
> 
>     I have the following proposal for creating a provider release package for Linux.
> This should allow mostly independent provider and libfabric releases, and ease provider
> backporting.
> 
> 
>     Detailed steps:
>     1. All code needed by the provider needs to be available under libfabric/prov/X.
>     1a.Add symbolic links for 'common_srcs':
> 
>        libfabric/prov/X/prov/util  -> libfabric/prov/util
>        libfabric/prov/X/include    -> libfabric/include
>        libfabric/prov/X/src/shared -> libfabric/src/shared
>        additional links for libfabric/src/ files (common.c, enosys.c, mem.c, etc.)
> 
>        (Symbolic links are not available on all platforms, which is why
>        they are not currently used.)
> 
>     2. Add Makefile.am and configure.ac files for libfabric/prov/X.
>        Each provider would manage their own build files.
> 
>     3. Update the provider's getinfo call to handle ABI structure changes
>        e.g. see src/abi_1_0.c
> 
>     4. Report API version based on libfabric target version.
>        Determined during configure or make process
> 
> 
>     Restructuring the code and build files would help make this more manageable, but
> isn't required.  E.g. moving shared code from src -> src/shared, adding a
> Makefile.include for prov/util, etc.
> 
>     The provider would build against their own copy of the headers to support multiple
> libfabric versions.  API compatibility code is already built into the providers, mostly
> through prov/util.  Today, the libfabric core handles ABI conversions, so that the
> provider's getinfo call only sees the latest version of the structures.  Step 3
> requires DL providers to handle this translation as well.
> 
>     The above changes could integrate into master.  Each provider could also create
> their own stable release branch(es) to manage as desired.  One possible work flow would
> be:
> 
> 
>     1. Align the provider branch with the latest major libfabric release.
>     2. Release a new provider package to support older libfabric releases.
>     3. Cherry pick patches from master to provider branch as needed.
>     4. Release provider update packages as needed.
>     5. Restart at step 1 each major libfabric release.
> 
> 
>     This sort of flow allows the provider to focus on mostly linear development model.
> There would be no need to backport fixes to a provider to multiple stable branches.  A
> single provider release would be able to support all previous libfabric versions.
> Rebasing provider release branches to align with the latest libfabric release would
> ensure that only released APIs are ever used.
> 
>     There's roughly a 40% chance that I'm missing some critical item that makes this
> completely fall apart.
> 
>     - Sean
>     _______________________________________________
>     ofiwg mailing list
>     ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
>     https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__lists.openfabrics.org_mailman_listinfo_ofiwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=C5b8zRQO1miGmBeVZ2LFWg&r=TG
> nc32XdTk02d6uCEdYjAGlqvSwDHPR0LsoJozLVKjE&m=Zpu9Uj3jefbVB3Ghqo8hN2xpLtwbbrjnsNHt1Yzf2js
> &s=PQ9fhhKDoTA9WZbUtj_ZSeO0k4iSny9tTi6H_HB2PpA&e=
> 
> 



More information about the ofiwg mailing list