Migrate riscv cross-compiles to docker container

[jdekonin]

A recent loss of the debian 10 system that was used for riscv compiles pushed me into moving this to a container. Due so memory consumption issues @janvrany has an open PR to address (#6912), the hosts currently require ~10gb ram. Once #6912 has been reviewed/changed/merged...the hosts for riscv cross-compiles can be reduced in ram requirement.

Also needs a dependent jiro change. eclipse-cbi/jiro#277

• remove deb10-x64-1 as its dead
• add label "compile:riscv64:cross" to ub20-x64-omr7 and ub20-x64-omr9
  ** docker container also has a requirement on cgroup.v2 configuration on the host

fyi @babsingh @janvrany @AdamBrousseau

[jdekonin]

jenkins build riscv

[jdekonin]

jenkins build riscv

[babsingh]

https://ci.eclipse.org/omr/job/PullRequest-linux_riscv64_cross/1127/console

An error was seen in the riscv build:

16:47:58  CMake Error at cmake/modules/OmrDetectSystemInformation.cmake:66 (message):
16:47:58    '-NOTFOUND' is not a valid value for OMR_SEMAPHORE_IMPLEMENTATION

[jdekonin]

jenkins build riscv

[jdekonin]

The scripting requires specific parameters to use the correct dockerfile. I've since added the parameters to the nightly and pr builds for riscv and this pr trigger for riscv should work as expected.

Note that the first time the container is built on the machine it will be slower to build an image. A future improvement will be to create an image weekly, monthly or as needed with the nightly or pr builds performing a pull of this prebuilt image.

[jdekonin]

I believe this is ready for review @babsingh.

[janvrany]

Looking at the job runs, I believe the build is running in wrong container:

21:25:10  Running on ub20-x64-omr9
...
21:25:39  + docker build -t buildomr .
21:25:39  Sending build context to Docker daemon  4.096kB

21:25:40  Step 1/12 : FROM nvidia/cuda:9.0-devel-ubuntu16.04 AS cuda-dev
21:25:40   ---> 5e8c06b47e9f
21:25:40  Step 2/12 : FROM ubuntu:20.04 AS base
21:25:40   ---> 88bd68917189

We may need to tweak omrbuild.groovy to use correct one. Maybe something like this?

diff --git a/buildenv/jenkins/omrbuild.groovy b/buildenv/jenkins/omrbuild.groovy
index c0d0437fd..8c8b309de 100644
--- a/buildenv/jenkins/omrbuild.groovy
+++ b/buildenv/jenkins/omrbuild.groovy
@@ -29,7 +29,6 @@ scmVars = null
 customWorkspace = null
 
 dockerImage = null
-dockerImageName = (params.IMAGE_NAME) ? params.IMAGE_NAME : "buildomr"
 
 /**
  * Move the below parameters into SPECS while implementing a generic
@@ -44,7 +43,6 @@ pullId = params.ghprbPullId
 
 cgroupV1Specs = ["linux_x86"]
 cgroupV2Specs = ["linux_x86-64", "linux_ppc-64_le_gcc"]
-dockerSpecs = ["linux_x86", "linux_x86-64"]
 
 nodeLabels = []
 runInDocker = false
@@ -167,6 +165,7 @@ SPECS = [
         'environment' : [
             'PATH+CCACHE=/usr/lib/ccache/'
         ],
+        'dockerImageName' : 'riscv64',
         'ccache' : true,
         'buildSystem' : 'cmake',
         'builds' : [
@@ -188,6 +187,7 @@ SPECS = [
             'PATH+CCACHE=/usr/lib/ccache/',
             'GTEST_COLOR=0'
         ],
+        'dockerImageName' : 'buildomr',
         'ccache' : true,
         'buildSystem' : 'cmake',
         'builds' : [
@@ -209,6 +209,7 @@ SPECS = [
             'PATH+CCACHE=/usr/lib/ccache/',
             'GTEST_COLOR=0'
         ],
+        'dockerImageName' : 'buildomr',
         'ccache' : true,
         'buildSystem' : 'cmake',
         'builds' : [
@@ -411,6 +412,10 @@ def test() {
     }
 }
 
+def dockerImageName() {
+    return (params.IMAGE_NAME) ? params.IMAGE_NAME : SPECS[buildSpec].dockerImageName
+}
+
 def cleanDockerContainers() {
     stage("Docker Remove Containers") {
         println("Listing docker containers to attempt removal")
@@ -428,7 +433,7 @@ def cleanDockerContainers() {
 def buildDockerImage() {
     stage("Docker Build") {
         dir("buildenv/docker/${arch}/${os}") {
-            dockerImage = docker.build(dockerImageName)
+            dockerImage = docker.build(dockerImageName())
         }
     }
 }
@@ -605,7 +610,7 @@ timestamps {
     timeout(time: 8, unit: 'HOURS') {
         stage('Queue') {
             nodeLabels += SPECS[buildSpec].label
-            runInDocker = dockerSpecs.contains(buildSpec)
+            runInDocker = dockerImageName() != null;
 
             if (cgroupV1Specs.contains(buildSpec)) {
                 nodeLabels += "cgroup.v1"

[jdekonin]

The most recent PR job landed on ub20-x64-omr7 and uses riscv-crosscompile as the IMAGE_NAME value.
https://ci.eclipse.org/omr/job/PullRequest-linux_riscv64_cross/1128/consoleFull

But reviewing the previous PR launch, you are definitely correct. The changes you detail would be part of the future improvement I eluded too that would able to pull a prebuilt image.

[babsingh]

cleanDockerContainers only removes Docker containers. All Docker images will be named buildomr. We are using Ubuntu 20 x64 for two different buildspecs. If there is an existing Docker image created using a different Dockerfile, will the script create a new Docker image or update the old one?

[babsingh]

@AdamBrousseau Can you also concurrently review these changes?

[AdamBrousseau]

Do we have anything on git.eclipse.org used in these builds?

[jdekonin]

I don't recall, but likely a c&p from another dockerfile and just not enough clean up so I'll remove.

[jdekonin]

jenkins build riscv

[babsingh]

re #7004 (review):

In omrbuild.groovy, cleanDockerContainers only removes Docker containers. All Docker images will be named buildomr. We are using Ubuntu 20 x64 for two different buildspecs. If there is an existing Docker image created using a different Dockerfile, will the script create a new Docker image or update the old one?

^^^ @jdekonin @AdamBrousseau If the above statement is true, then we will need a unique docker image name (buildomr_<SPEC_NAME>) for each buildspec. This solution will be the code change suggested by @janvrany in #7004 (comment).

[jdekonin]

All docker images will be named buildomr unless the value is overridden with a supplied IMAGE_NAME. I added that to the jobs to uses riscv-crosscompile as the value so there wouldn't be a conflict with the other docker image in use.

If you want that code changes as part of this PR that fine and not future enhancement, thats fine I'll get there eventually.

[babsingh]

added that to the jobs to use riscv-crosscompile

Then, these changes should work fine.

The code LGTM. @jdekonin Can you please squash the commits?

[babsingh]

@AdamBrousseau Do these changes look good to you?

[AdamBrousseau]

lftm now. Thanks.

[babsingh]

Final verification before merge:

jenkins build riscv