Bug 229710 - lang/mono: port to aarch64
Summary: lang/mono: port to aarch64
Status: New
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Only Me
Assignee: freebsd-mono (Nobody)
Depends on:
Blocks: 201763
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2018-07-12 01:45 UTC by Greg V
Modified: 2020-04-19 07:57 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
bugzilla: maintainer-feedback? (mono)

mono-aarch64.patch (10.39 KB, patch)
2018-07-12 01:45 UTC, Greg V
no flags Details | Diff
mono-aarch64.patch (10.41 KB, patch)
2018-08-06 17:10 UTC, Greg V
no flags Details | Diff
mono-aarch64.patch v2 (10.56 KB, patch)
2018-12-28 14:52 UTC, Greg V
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Greg V 2018-07-12 01:45:30 UTC
Created attachment 195063 [details]

I don't know why I did this, I'm not even planning to use .NET on my RPi3, I guess it was just bothering me that it worked on armv7 and not aarch64… (also I needed to do something in parallel while Crystal was compiling on the ThunderX I rented from packet.net)

Hopefully I didn't screw anything up (I was modifying the port as errors appeared, did not clean and rebuild from scratch — it's slow and access to a ThunderX is expensive… honestly it's not much faster than RPi here because of an issue described below)

The Roslyn C# compiler has a concurrency problem on aarch64: https://github.com/mono/mono/issues/7017 (not FreeBSD specific) so the workaround is to disable parallelism… so the .NET libraries are built very very slowly :(

BoringSSL patch is from bug 223019 but slightly modified (to ignore <sys/auxv.h>), see comment in that thread.

Also there was an intermittent jemalloc error, had to restart the build once:

<jemalloc>: /usr/src/contrib/jemalloc/include/jemalloc/internal/extent_inlines.h:63: Failed assertion: "szind < NSIZES"                                                               

Got a SIGABRT while executing native code. This usually indicates
a fatal error in the mono runtime or one of the native libraries
used by your application.

gmake[14]: *** [../../../build/library.make:342: ../../../class/lib/net_4_x-linux/Facades/System.IO.FileSystem.Primitives.dll] Abort trap (core dumped)
Comment 1 Mikael Urankar freebsd_committer 2018-08-06 15:37:03 UTC
(In reply to Greg V from comment #0)
Can you regenerate the patch, the plist patch is broken:
svn patch --strip 3 --dry-run patch.aarch64 
U         Makefile
>         applied hunk @@ -60,6 +60,15 @@ with offset 4
>         applied hunk @@ -88,4 +97,4 @@ with offset 4
A         files/extra-patch-aarch64-race-workaround
U         files/patch-configure.ac
A         files/patch-external_boringssl_crypto_cpu-aarch64-linux.c
A         files/patch-mono_sgen_sgen-archdep.h
A         files/patch-mono_utils_mono-sigcontext.h
C         pkg-plist
>         rejected hunk @@ -2937,38 +2937,38 @@
Summary of conflicts:
  Text conflicts: 1

It builds fine on -current (I don't have the jemalloc issue and I don't need the extra patch on my board), have you tried on 11.1 or 11.2?
Comment 2 Greg V 2018-08-06 17:10:02 UTC
Created attachment 195945 [details]

Sure, this should be a diff against current master.

I only tried on CURRENT.

jemalloc — maybe you got lucky, it only happened once during my build. Or maybe this was fixed — I used an old current snapshot for the build.

extra-patch — looks like the model of the processor matters. The concurrency bug is definitely happening on Cavium ThunderX (it's been happening to everyone on Linux before I even tried on FreeBSD).
Comment 3 Mikael Urankar freebsd_committer 2018-08-07 14:39:40 UTC
It builds fine on 11.1.
Comment 4 Colin T. 2018-11-24 05:37:28 UTC
Part of this patch has been merged upstream:
Comment 5 Greg V 2018-12-28 14:52:05 UTC
Created attachment 200579 [details]
mono-aarch64.patch v2

Updated patch with correct cpu feature detection in boringssl (thanks: Mikael)
Comment 6 Mikael Urankar freebsd_committer 2019-03-18 09:20:32 UTC
Can this patch gets reviewed/commited?