Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:25:11 -0700
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org>
Cc:        src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r351456 - head/sys/amd64/amd64
Message-ID:  <1a09a4ef-45aa-1bb2-5b16-1bde24df0f3d@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190824204353.GH71821@kib.kiev.ua>
References:  <201908241528.x7OFSemm026182@repo.freebsd.org> <CAG6CVpWN56eRRUgCubK3F750zoDun8ZocLaot5w0H4Emrq9=xQ@mail.gmail.com> <20190824161503.GA71821@kib.kiev.ua> <CAG6CVpWMquckqAx7jQTam5qjB3GubrrzQYxnZafjwjLEjqf6Qg@mail.gmail.com> <20190824204353.GH71821@kib.kiev.ua>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/24/19 1:43 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 11:47:52AM -0700, Conrad Meyer wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 9:15 AM Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 08:49:42AM -0700, Conrad Meyer wrote:
>>>> Hi Konstantin,
>>>>
>>>> What is the motivation for this change?  The commit message doesn't
>>>> really describe why it was done.
>>>
>>> Really it does. There is no point to request allocations for e.g.
>>> doublefault stack to be at the local domain, because this stack is only
>>> used once.  Doublefault is definitely a machine halt situation, it does
>>> not matter if it generates inter-socket traffic to handle.
>>>
>>> Same for boot stacks, and for mce.
>>>
>>> The change avoids unnecessary constraints.
>>
>> Sure, but what is the harm of the unnecessary constraints?  Does this
>> change fix an actual bug, or is it just a stylistic preference to
>> avoid domain-specific allocations for infrequently used objects?
> I am not sure about this being a stylistic preference.  We usually
> write code to express the required actions.  I removed constraints
> which did not added anything neither to code correctness nor to the
> performance.

Judging by the thread on current though, this fixes boot panics on
machines with NUMA but CPUs that don't have local memory, correct?
I think that's the thing Conrad is asking.

-- 
John Baldwin



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1a09a4ef-45aa-1bb2-5b16-1bde24df0f3d>