From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Wed Sep 11 15:15:18 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A16D6FEC for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:15:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markjdb@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46T5791dVHz43M4 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:15:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markjdb@gmail.com) Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id f4so45935979ion.2 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:15:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=gz3AXwftLEOIeRZOrHwHQgPzlZX9AlkUhYF7P1FtR/g=; b=RsketEWgKSLyOwOOiksc6zGYnHn0COjpulD+GP8qi31ISajuvnpB2yekTrJAn/jMDf hVkHwMnF3JQyTM/Xent6MXLow3UntpBMmh7PLNnNsVAcvUskif6+8mbyEBFUncRkH6/K QOUeG+SjwukokJO6y4s++PLv97BfxZNO6IH/HJ/n0gAuYdNFm6M2HeEsO7oN5jE2jx+I p1aFSSjaCFPj97FQDSuM3wUxnZ43C6mo1+hPCiq3kw0XCe7kv6jHP5ks+NUCgY5zZdWq MrvvZ8QUvkjvMx0GuOOc7SfnWuuUGjy1KSWeRLUDPFOowHrFuPMRXonuOHaC25luEfS9 ortw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=gz3AXwftLEOIeRZOrHwHQgPzlZX9AlkUhYF7P1FtR/g=; b=drXRN+8rl/PC3ltc9K5CjqgamE4+oVxct884AWuLsepTKhbziPG2RkOgsvTmhA7LOb 0AiyCoMuv0NUe2BeSBJaekboLfmlOkNgQIu0aoPqChmxd9frEzuOAY4OZrTDTGA0FS83 YeKfREP1FiTRzgl0CCO28SQ+qU5HlKP9rS2dJosPrga8MlPnrsBow9mpomIekEsmm6Lp nBi1sGTKX/O1yeubnGMoq17L5liP5eIsAG8OzckMZi1LITX0xirwXFEDJV/1Q3WliieT JV2Iz0uKdkmPZ8k13BUD3O0ybg5tRw2YKMO5cxrutUO14v/xT7EZOyrMhpw3ysTizqnn qEOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVKRkSg9xnG2QaSejYmuhSv4ZCAGcfmLBtQcmsN2uIoWbgYSaJS tfTZl7c1E/Vw6ld5clOzbIVITK6C X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqypTQhylPboRqz13W/wSraaCAB0se7lzKOMf6iizx4Dzfy6Kw1Div7QJHOAAQvkixyMruZpLw== X-Received: by 2002:a02:6601:: with SMTP id k1mr39161122jac.47.1568214915680; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:15:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from raichu (toroon0560w-lp140-01-69-159-39-167.dsl.bell.ca. [69.159.39.167]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f7sm16080128ioc.31.2019.09.11.08.15.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Mark Johnston Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:15:12 -0400 From: Mark Johnston To: Mark Millard Cc: FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: "cpuset -n prefer:?" --what values for "?" are supposed to be allowed? (only 1 is, despite two numa domains) Message-ID: <20190911151512.GB17992@raichu> References: <20190911143125.GA17992@raichu> <99BB5653-1F42-4309-9892-24029FD02E39@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <99BB5653-1F42-4309-9892-24029FD02E39@yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46T5791dVHz43M4 X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=RsketEWg; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of markjdb@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=markjdb@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.50 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36:c]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[gmail.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[markj@freebsd.org,markjdb@gmail.com]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[yahoo.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; IP_SCORE(-1.80)[ip: (-3.95), ipnet: 2607:f8b0::/32(-2.72), asn: 15169(-2.25), country: US(-0.05)]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[markj@freebsd.org,markjdb@gmail.com]; SUBJECT_HAS_QUESTION(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[gmail.com:s=20161025]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-current@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[4.3.d.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.b.8.f.7.0.6.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:15:18 -0000 On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 07:57:26AM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: > > > On 2019-Sep-11, at 07:31, Mark Johnston wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:58:05PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: > >> In a context with: > >> > >> # cpuset -g > >> pid -1 mask: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 > >> pid -1 domain policy: first-touch mask: 0, 1 > >> > >> I get: > >> > >> # cpuset -l0 -n prefer:0 COMMAND > >> cpuset: setdomain: Invalid argument > >> > >> # cpuset -l0 -n prefer:2 COMMAND > >> cpuset: setdomain: Invalid argument > >> > >> But one prefer:? value does allow the COMMAND > >> to run: > >> > >> # cpuset -l0 -n prefer:1 COMMAND > >> > >> This seem odd to me. Am I missing something? > >> > >> For reference: I'm using a ThreadRipper 1950X > >> with a head -r351227 based context for this > >> activity. The above happens to have been run > >> in a Windows 10 Pro HyperV session, instead > >> of in a native-boot of the same media. (A > >> native-boot would have had 32 CPUs.) > > > > Can you please show the output of "sysctl vm.phys_segs" from this > > setup? > > Sure: I was wondering if you had only one domain populated, but it seems not to be the case. Could you try updating to r351672 or later and see if the behaviour persists?