From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Aug  3 22:12:57 2007
Return-Path: <owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767)
	id DDFFA16A420; Fri,  3 Aug 2007 22:12:56 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: perforce@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC6816A418;
	Fri,  3 Aug 2007 22:12:56 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from anuket.mj.niksun.com (gwnew.niksun.com [65.115.46.162])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F6D13C467;
	Fri,  3 Aug 2007 22:12:56 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from niksun.com (anuket [10.70.0.5])
	by anuket.mj.niksun.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l73MCtGw017727;
	Fri, 3 Aug 2007 18:12:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org)
From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
To: perforce@FreeBSD.org
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 18:12:50 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <200708021130.l72BUHrY077198@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<200708031203.36406.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
	<20070803205914.GA12533@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070803205914.GA12533@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200708031812.53069.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 124529 for review
X-BeenThere: p4-projects@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: p4 projects tree changes <p4-projects.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/p4-projects>,
	<mailto:p4-projects-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/p4-projects>
List-Post: <mailto:p4-projects@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p4-projects-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/p4-projects>,
	<mailto:p4-projects-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:12:57 -0000

On Friday 03 August 2007 04:59 pm, Roman Divacky wrote:
> > > cpumaskt_t is just an unsigned int so ~0 should be fine.
> >
> > For now. ;-) I was thinking about increasing it some time after
> > 7.0 branching.  It is very clear that we will need it soon, i.e.,
> > multicore CPUs are becoming more common these days. 
> > FreeBSD/sun4v already hit the limit with just one processor:
> >
> > http://www.fsmware.com/sun4v/dmesg_latest.txt
> >
> > Even on amd64/i386 world, we will hit it very soon, e.g.,
> > octal-core * quad-socket => 32 cores.  Without increasing the
> > sizeof(cpumask_t) and/or grouping physical cores per socket, we
> > won't be able to survive very long.
>
> yeah yeah.. ;) maybe we can use the same trick linux did. anyway
> its ok now.

:-)

> > > in FreeBSD it doesnt make any sense to emulate linux size
> > > because if fbsd doesnt support that many CPUs we cannot emulate
> > > it. So using fbsd-sized cpumask_t and telling userland about it
> > > is ok.
> > >
> > > agree?
> >
> > Agreed, for 7.0.  We should fix it later when we add something
> > like sched_{get,set}affinity() syscalls.
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~ssouhlal/testing/setaffinity-20070707.di
>ff
>
> I already asked attilio@ to review it and hopefully do something
> about it.

Very cool!

> > > thnx for the review!
> >
> > Thank you!
>
> so... do you agree that the current revision is fine. I need this
> to get kib@ to commit this...

Yes.

Jung-uk Kim