From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org  Tue Nov 14 17:21:35 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@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 477D4DD8461
 for <freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:21:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lm@mcvoy.com)
Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250])
 (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 38E2C66D4B
 for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:21:34 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from lm@mcvoy.com)
Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546)
 id 42C2335E130; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:21:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:21:34 -0800
From: Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org,
 scottl@netflix.com, kbowling@llnw.com, gallatin@netflix.com
Subject: Re: small patch for numactl.  Comments?
Message-ID: <20171114172134.GD6265@mcvoy.com>
References: <20171114020138.GA18863@mcvoy.com>
 <20171114171032.ez6pxk3yrlczplvi@mguzik>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171114171032.ez6pxk3yrlczplvi@mguzik>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:21:35 -0000

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:10:34PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > I'm wacking LMbench to be numa aware and this patch would help me make
> > sure that when you are a numa machine you could insist that people 
> > run the benchmark via numactl (imma gonna blog about numa, it sucks
> > unless you are numa aware).
> > 
> 
> Well, I think the right thing to do is to query the existing policy and
> complain when it turns out nothing is set. Perhaps exit by default and
> add a switch to proceed anyway.

As already stated, that means #ifdef-ing portable code.  Not a fan of that.

I believe someone already approved env var approach anyway.