From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Sat Jul 25 08:52:19 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8249A9125 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:52:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05AE11C99 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:52:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.84 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1ZIvBh-000KA1-Qz; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 11:52:09 +0300 Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 11:52:09 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Scott Long Cc: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r284959 - in head: . share/man/man4 share/man/man9 sys/conf sys/dev/glxsb sys/dev/hifn sys/dev/random sys/dev/rndtest sys/dev/safe sys/dev/syscons sys/dev/ubsec sys/dev/virtio/random sy... Message-ID: <20150725085209.GI43740@zxy.spb.ru> References: <201506301700.t5UH0jPq001498@svn.freebsd.org> <20150724012519.GE78154@funkthat.com> <96EA33AB-7325-4DD2-83F4-B4FAF6F47CB5@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <96EA33AB-7325-4DD2-83F4-B4FAF6F47CB5@yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 08:52:19 -0000 On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:06:59PM -0600, Scott Long via svn-src-all wrote: > > I'm working on a premise of "tools, not policy". I'd like there to be > > enough harvesting points for the box owner to get the warm fuzzies. > > If they choose to use less, fine by me. > > > > Sure, and that's not an unreasonable goal, but the devil is in the details. > It's an unfortunate fact of modern CPU architecture that even something > as simple and innocent as a run-time control that checks a variable can > cause significant performance problems, thanks to the penalty of cache > misses and bus contention between lots of CPU cores. Maybe these > "extended" collection points should be controlled with a compile-time > option? I am hate compile-time option, may be time to introduction some JIT in project? As global feature.