Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 13:05:49 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Jia-Shiun Li <jiashiun@gmail.com>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, Tim Bishop <tim-lists@bishnet.net> Subject: cpuid_t typedef? (was Re: Processor cores not properly detected/activated?) Message-ID: <CAJ-VmonhjQZGhxTjgJA5a3Cyu%2Bx7HCmuK1MDoLQtdpHJ4wR-FA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29 May 2014 11:44, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:24:45 pm Adrian Chadd wrote: >> On 29 May 2014 10:18, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> >> > It costs wired memory to increase it for the kernel. The userland set size >> >> > can be increased rather arbitrarily, so we don't need to make it but so large >> >> > as it is easy to bump later (even with a branch). >> >> >> >> Well, what about making the API/KBI use cpuset_t pointers for things >> >> rather than including it as a bitmask? Do you think there'd be a >> >> noticable performance overhead for the bits where it's indirecting >> >> through a pointer to get to the bitmask data? >> > >> > The wired memory is not due to cpuset_t. The wired memory usage is due to things >> > that do 'struct foo foo_bits[MAXCPU]'. The KBI issues I mentioned above are >> > 'struct rmlock' (so now you want any rmlock users to malloc space, or you >> > want rmlock_init() call malloc? (that seems like a bad idea)). The other one >> > is smp_rendezvous. Plus, it's not just a pointer, you really need a (pointer, >> > size_t) tuple similar to what cpuset_getaffinity(), etc. use. >> >> Why would calling malloc be a problem? Except for the initial setup of >> things, anything dynamically allocating structs with embedded things >> like rmlocks are already dynamically allocating them via malloc or >> uma. >> >> There's a larger fundamental problem with malloc, fragmentation and >> getting the required larger allocations for things. But even a 4096 >> CPU box would require a 512 byte malloc. That shouldn't be that hard >> to do. It'd just be from some memory that isn't close to the rest of >> the lock state. > > Other similar APIs like mtx_init() don't call malloc(), so it would be > unusual behavior. However, we have several other problems before we can > move beyond 256 anyway (like pf). Maybe behaviour has to change over time. :( anyway. Besides all of this - I'm thinking of just introducing: typedef uint32_t cpuid_t; .. then once we've converted all the users, we can make NOCPU something other than 255 (which is the other limiting factor here..) Any objections? -a
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmonhjQZGhxTjgJA5a3Cyu%2Bx7HCmuK1MDoLQtdpHJ4wR-FA>