Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:34:44 -0400 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [rfc] remove hlt_cpus et al sysctls and related code Message-ID: <BANLkTinLwVZqQ3C0E4Ey=tWNV5bLZ%2BUgcw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4DE4D41B.1000000@FreeBSD.org> References: <4DD3F662.9040603@FreeBSD.org> <BANLkTikOTe9ut3GFx0bhOernKandRGLhPg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinVGrLoAOS_ZQ1YVB_Fw1cvf5kHyA@mail.gmail.com> <BBCD9D8C-FCAF-4DE3-9F66-4B65AAABE67B@gmail.com> <BANLkTikMZ_xs4WCJVJG4oHe3rOKU8rqfVw@mail.gmail.com> <4DD54C18.8050305@FreeBSD.org> <4DDA8B2A.6010500@FreeBSD.org> <4DDD2B34.5070702@FreeBSD.org> <BANLkTikDG-XOkWdc4Ztd1tJMHW95UEErUQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTin4h%2BDSV4hh-AOSkif4-GBvoQHWsg@mail.gmail.com> <4DE4D41B.1000000@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/5/31 Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>: > on 29/05/2011 06:06 Attilio Rao said the following: >> 2011/5/28 Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>: >>> 2011/5/25 Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>: >>>> The patch is here: >>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/cpu-offline-sysctl.diff >>>> It should implement the strategy described above. >>>> >>> >>> I don't see the point in keeping alive mp_grab_cpu_hlt() and >>> supporting, actually. >>> >>> On the top of your patch I made some modifies that use directly >>> ap_watchdog() in cpu_idle() which I think is better for the time >>> being: >>> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/avg_rem_cpuhlt.diff > > Yes, I agree, thank you. > >>> If you are happy with it, just commit as long as Garrett tests that. > > > OK. =C2=A0Waiting for test feedback. > >>> On a second round of changes we can discuss mp_watchdog and eventual >>> removal / improvements to it. >> >> I almost forgot: this change would also require an UPDATE entry, where >> you explicitly mention the "new" way to deal with CPUs. Use your >> prefer wording. > > Sure. =C2=A0Thank you! > > BTW, I guess there would be no reason to MFC this change? You mean no reason to not MFC it? In general, I think that users may expect those sysctls to be alive (IMHO we should consider sysctls to be part of the userland API) so that we can add some more, but we should not axe them. So probabilly MFC is not the best option here. Attilio --=20 Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTinLwVZqQ3C0E4Ey=tWNV5bLZ%2BUgcw>