From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 31 13:40:48 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD939106564A; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:40:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56C18FC14; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:40:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id QAA11207; Tue, 31 May 2011 16:40:46 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4DE4EFDD.8070803@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:40:45 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110504 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Attilio Rao References: <4DD3F662.9040603@FreeBSD.org> <4DD54C18.8050305@FreeBSD.org> <4DDA8B2A.6010500@FreeBSD.org> <4DDD2B34.5070702@FreeBSD.org> <4DE4D41B.1000000@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: [rfc] remove hlt_cpus et al sysctls and related code X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 13:40:48 -0000 on 31/05/2011 16:34 Attilio Rao said the following: > 2011/5/31 Andriy Gapon : >> on 29/05/2011 06:06 Attilio Rao said the following: >>> 2011/5/28 Attilio Rao : >>>> 2011/5/25 Andriy Gapon : >>>>> 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