Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:40:45 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Attilio Rao <attilio@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: <4DE4EFDD.8070803@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinLwVZqQ3C0E4Ey=tWNV5bLZ%2BUgcw@mail.gmail.com> 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> <BANLkTinLwVZqQ3C0E4Ey=tWNV5bLZ%2BUgcw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 31/05/2011 16:34 Attilio Rao said the following: > 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. Waiting 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. Thank you! >> >> BTW, I guess there would be no reason to MFC this change? > > You mean no reason to not MFC it? I meant exactly what I asked :-) As in: I didn't see any reason for MFC. > 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. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DE4EFDD.8070803>