From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Wed Sep 11 18:14:51 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 35ED5DB6F4 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:14:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marklmi@yahoo.com) Received: from sonic308-9.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (sonic308-9.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [66.163.187.32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46T96L2mNlz4FYW for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:14:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marklmi@yahoo.com) X-YMail-OSG: VDTiFN8VM1nza.XakPnpb2SIZP1vQILOgi6Zfj06XgE3jc0b3rDDr7j5kQoAUKc M46R6UTTtJwEix_vrou9byobso_tVYKtHDF3xUhIF52XIbhp4nPk_rVG9iUwLqlDGF3rlWYCnjPQ khrD7cK1J2_7goy8ZpOh9iJ_4kRFXg6HM187qyAIPE.76LYlO64MqdBvNVKCOpkplS_ypwr13ylN J34UrGzqps1ZPGsxgeR3JeRgZ.VIaNG5ZI_u6mU1WPaDoqMnlCY4a0Qkd5k7ma9zHd3Sdhk9Kdwm KCZQqgk77HwgYesxxynpM3EJsnhRlDxEGXEX.WKreQIgidvs8jNkG.87DiS9iQKuyTvU7yW9VAo1 fAVYcQOCyTgNKg5f1EIbnSJsTPUwHu3j8_gXkuWmpBrJ6MI69DBuREQE.NUgRO2GEQ5h0UwY9LvM NZRCRrrZVsn0n.vdqMZM_ANnLPcxXpYSJ5J0KOIg1VbMUf9kGYIn9IcHm33C4eg8NmjgIY0sFub1 gHjn_7rbWBWAWdIrmf0Of6qjFifrbZziFSSvKKpP5b8Stc8sjhmHkV.FgcBRCLcX9hSgq0UD_tLh uoSLETf8BIEUF8.yBPu2MSKrhPDpcQ1DsrQaWACwu9RS60eyPCieCsxwA.OOMhnpvqS4SX.BgMF6 lX9XgmOCWXmdy88G7k.QMUkf0aX5xex_bWvAHarSmQHnpU6MddemBPxMhQTyGWBTaNaNkDuZgJti _qr5l3Lvz66TffilCVwaKdVNg5t2ebJMHYAY8bQScUXHx5yHIYy.6YxFI1tgqkEKyqVK2nLtYK1g 25eqHLbNjUtWf2EKqjDClU2SgwsnWZe3G8IhqaLKZNa7B3GQNDyptU7m0cxcqWeQ5nEuV4cNyfzA lHD4UyEdUdlxipqyMjGrGnzZ1ifdnKP.PE22.pIajrKV1haexoJiOg2HISorEF3w9ayyfibSqiaO YGWXSBMlsa49rQghBisTlS3eIYOApqekv4GJYzCwcjgGY77ZDwNFea93JqWMkykVMApjOkepiXgp teKQXba7SbzZzVvGX2BpKBcxubqrGjc6TMBm7RLoX8NoCGBZ1o.G_6YauJq7ukk_FKubJZDosqFQ LOUAZsmszWOls0Y7.lTSwuD5ibZ8kjXLMXHfwAJSRjLu0oNqxTgo3uEEpuBYRLaXv7eIoVMSIDsY N.CIfLVO8fxVnn6tSLiGZsRz08KQgTgddplwhgrcAfsMFJUQZ3WIT5IefZuO6YeieIB8wpxf1J35 uVj6tECKMmDYd0Cr7qOBSVHOQ1RUUo8PBMf4D1ZNFyL.D3Ff8BjMzuq1a0fZAIGcyYE6R Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic308.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:14:48 +0000 Received: by smtp430.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (Oath Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID df8eb85ede1bb96da59f2499f775d362; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 18:14:44 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Subject: Re: "cpuset -n prefer:?" --what values for "?" are supposed to be allowed? (only 1 is, despite two numa domains) From: Mark Millard In-Reply-To: <3CE4AEB7-E32C-49BD-8C75-71AB8739BAEC@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:14:42 -0700 Cc: FreeBSD Current Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <54F53CA8-6BEC-4B31-9662-C6854CDE0A08@yahoo.com> References: <20190911143125.GA17992@raichu> <99BB5653-1F42-4309-9892-24029FD02E39@yahoo.com> <20190911151512.GB17992@raichu> <3CE4AEB7-E32C-49BD-8C75-71AB8739BAEC@yahoo.com> To: Mark Johnston X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46T96L2mNlz4FYW X-Spamd-Bar: - X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.64 / 15.00]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ptr:yahoo.com]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[yahoo.com]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[yahoo.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[yahoo.com,reject]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.00)[ip: (4.65), ipnet: 66.163.184.0/21(1.30), asn: 36646(1.04), country: US(-0.05)]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[yahoo.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36646, ipnet:66.163.184.0/21, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_HAS_QUESTION(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.69)[-0.687,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[yahoo.com:s=s2048]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[yahoo.com.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.46)[-0.458,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE_FREEMAIL(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[32.187.163.66.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] 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 18:14:51 -0000 On 2019-Sep-11, at 10:11, Mark Millard wrote: > On 2019-Sep-11, at 08:15, Mark Johnston wrote: >=20 >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 07:57:26AM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On 2019-Sep-11, at 07:31, Mark Johnston = wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:58:05PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: >>>>> In a context with: >>>>>=20 >>>>> # 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 >>>>>=20 >>>>> I get: >>>>>=20 >>>>> # cpuset -l0 -n prefer:0 COMMAND >>>>> cpuset: setdomain: Invalid argument >>>>>=20 >>>>> # cpuset -l0 -n prefer:2 COMMAND >>>>> cpuset: setdomain: Invalid argument >>>>>=20 >>>>> But one prefer:? value does allow the COMMAND >>>>> to run: >>>>>=20 >>>>> # cpuset -l0 -n prefer:1 COMMAND >>>>>=20 >>>>> This seem odd to me. Am I missing something? >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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.) >>>>=20 >>>> Can you please show the output of "sysctl vm.phys_segs" from this >>>> setup? >>>=20 >>> Sure: >>=20 >> 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? >=20 > It may be a bit before I do that. >=20 > FYI: I had set MAXMEMDOM to match the number of > actual domains for the context: >=20 > /usr/src/sys/amd64/conf/GENERIC-DBG:options MAXMEMDOM=3D2 > /usr/src/sys/amd64/conf/GENERIC-NODBG:options MAXMEMDOM=3D2 >=20 > (These kernel configuration files include GENERIC.) Not that the below is the problem that I reported, but cpuset_modify_domain has an oddity. In the below, note the "root->" use followed by the "root &&" test: the root-> use would have failed first. Should the && be "dset &&" instead? Should "root &&" just be removed for being redundant? 793 root =3D cpuset_getroot(set); 794 mtx_lock_spin(&cpuset_lock); 795 dset =3D root->cs_domain; 796 /* 797 * Verify that we have access to this set of = domains. 798 */ 799 if (root && !domainset_valid(dset, domain)) { 800 error =3D EINVAL; 801 goto out; 802 } =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com ( dsl-only.net went away in early 2018-Mar)