Rare project developers

[Alexander Gall <>]

On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 08:10:44 +0200, mc36 <> said:

> hi,
> okay then, as we never seen such before, then lemme revert back to even 
> numbers....
> https://bitbucket.software.geant.org/projects/RARE/repos/rare/commits/865cbb37cf80f38fc142c8af44a20a57a4ea1c4b

This is getting really weird. I re-optimized with this change and it
happened again. Well, not exactly, but I can't really reconstruct what
really happened the first time.

What I have now is amazing. I have the GRE profile optimized
successfully to this (with 9.7.2):

#ifdef PROFILE_GRE
#define HAVE_ALPM
#define HAVE_GRE
#define HAVE_TUN

#define PORT_TABLE_SIZE                45056
#define BUNDLE_TABLE_SIZE                      128
#define VLAN_TABLE_SIZE                        512
#define IPV4_LPM_TABLE_SIZE            401408
#define IPV6_LPM_TABLE_SIZE            100352
#define IPV4_HOST_TABLE_SIZE                   256
#define IPV6_HOST_TABLE_SIZE                   256
#define NEXTHOP_TABLE_SIZE             45056
#define IPV4_TUNNEL_TABLE_SIZE         45056
#define IPV6_TUNNEL_TABLE_SIZE         22528
#define _TABLE_SIZE_P4_
#endif

When I compile just with -DPROFILE_GRE (what the optimizer does), it
works. But when I compile with either -DDUAL_PIPE or -DQUAD_PIPE, I
get

bf_router.tofino2/pipe/bf_router.bfa:5717: error: tofino2 supports up to 20 
stages, using 21
bf_router.tofino2/pipe/bf_router.bfa:0: error: Due to errors, no binary will 
be generated
failed command assembler

But these defines simply change the values of CPU_PORT and
RECIR_PORT. It turns out that setting RECIR_PORT to 1 leads to this
failure. The compiler also takes significantly longer to get there as
when the compilation is successful.

I don't know how to deal with this yet. It's probably not a bug but a
very extreme outcome of optimizing the MAU resources.

-- 
Alex


> thanks,
> cs


> On 6/9/22 07:22, Alexander Gall wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 07:13:14 +0200, mc36 <> said:
>> 
>>> can i ask that what went wrong so you had to adjust?
>>> did the optimizer somehow miscalculated on this particular one or so?
>> 
>> I'm not sure what happened :( I just noticed that this profile didn't
>> compile when I tested the RARE package with the result of my first
>> optimization run. When I re-run the optimizer now, it gives me the new
>> value. But nothing should have changed between those runs...
>>