Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 12:44:34 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CFT/CFR: NUMA policy branch Message-ID: <D4E453E6-A92B-4A23-A89E-DBCFA229CB31@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <168418DA-CCD3-4BA8-A0C9-5F0CF967F2E0@bsdimp.com> References: <CAJ-Vmo=SnqXTF5m65haKqrVf699zinyXs%2BQdvR6V88CW7vooCw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonyTfSxj%2BD=FN3TUCO33w4vGqh1REQqx-8rd-JcArfqSA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmo=ON9bEngDoMFK-kJR=qVvcX%2BEeQXx%2BUoEsh1npMHjESQ@mail.gmail.com> <D60A4F17-D573-4C0D-AD8B-2C3710A67DA6@gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmokym0_M=owRuR1uAcfAnzme-0xULs%2BYShQ7GXa7V9F6Vg@mail.gmail.com> <559D778B.5050408@freebsd.org> <168418DA-CCD3-4BA8-A0C9-5F0CF967F2E0@bsdimp.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
What name calling? Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 8, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > >> On Jul 8, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 7/7/15 11:38 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >>> There's a phabricator review. It's not up to date, because: >>> >>> * it broke for a while, and >>> * kib requested he be sent patches, not a phabricator review. >> >> >> So Kib is complaining that his feedback is getting lost, but refuses to use a review tracker? >> >> MFW: >> http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/25000000/No-country-for-old-men-tommy-lee-jones-25069727-450-276.jpg > > Do we really need to resort to name calling for a reviewer who is trying > to help make things better? kib has provided me good feedback on patches > I’ve done in the past, though it sometimes takes me a while to understand > his concerns. It is well worth the while to do that, and to engage him > constructively rather than belittling his efforts. And experience has shown > that phabricator is great for small patches, but terrible for large patches > that get revised over and over before going in. This is the 4th or 5th > review than I can recall where phabricator’s flaws went from minor > annoyances to major hassles. For really big reviews, I’m starting to think > after 2 or 3 rounds we should close the review and start a new one > to help work around the issues. > > In other words, the right reaction to “I’m stopping the review here since it isn’t > half done” isn’t the defensive and belittling one one I’ve seen, but rather to > start a conversation about what he thinks is missing. Maybe he’s missed > something, or maybe you have. While it is cool people are using it, kib’s > concerns generally are looking past the initial glow of partial success for > how to climb the next mountain range and generally are worth the effort > to get. > > Warner > >> -Alfred >> >>> >>> -a >>> >>> >>>> On 7 July 2015 at 23:13, Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Jul 5, 2015, at 19:06, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I've done another update. kib@ has been beating me with the clue stick a bit. >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/compare/master...erikarn:local/adrian_numa_policy >>>>> >>>>> * (kib) (numactl.c) fix up sorting of include files >>>>> * (kib) (numactl.c) consistent use of values when calling err() >>>>> * (kib) (numactl.c) consistently wrap lines at 78 characters, don't >>>>> prematurely wrap lines >>>>> * (kib) don't use the old-style BSD licence mentioning "regents", use >>>>> the updated one >>>>> * (kib) (vm_domain.c) don't break out after iterating a few times and >>>>> have the API be unpredictable - so now the API will always succeed in >>>>> reading a vm_policy >>>>> >>>>> I've tested the policies (first-touch, fixed-domain, round-robin) and >>>>> they all still work as advertised, both on threads and processes. >>>>> >>>>> I'd appreciate more reviews and some further testing. >>>> Please create a dummy pull request or post the code up on Phabricator. >>>> >>>> - Please put some of the items like policy_to_str and str_to_policy in a library. >>>> - Please use that code in the kernel as well for sysctl_vm_default_policy to reduce duplication. >>>> - Please note reasoning for why `options MAXMEMDOM=16` in numa(4). >>>> - Why are checking for `if (p)` before calling PROC_UNLOCK(p) in sys_numa_getaffinity, but not sys_numa_setaffinity? >>>> - sys_numa_setaffinity and sys_numa_getaffinity look similar. Could something be implemented like sysctl(3) for handling getting/setting of affinities all in one shot? >>>> - `if (p)` should be `if (p != NULL)`, etc per style(9). >>>> - Is there a way that the affinity could be inherited/not inherited across threads, similar to what ktrace -i does? If so, how does one do that? >>>> - In vm_domain_rr_selectdomain, should this use atomic(9), i.e. can multiple threads access/mangle the value of td_dom_rr_idx in parallel? >>>> - In vm_domain_policy_validate, couldn’t you remove all of the intermediary `return (-1)`’s as long as you put `break;`s in the switch/case statements? >>>> - Should vm_domain_policy_cleanup/vm_domain_policy_init be implemented? If so, what should they have in there? >>>> - Would it make sense for `struct vm_domain_iterator` to be a queue(9)-like type (just based on the name alone)? If not, what data structure do you anticipate it having, e.g. tree, queue, directed graph, etc? >>>> - In vm_domain_iterator_run, vi->n is always decremented after the vi->n <= 0 run is done — why not move that outside the switch-case statement? >>>> - Why did you hand roll `vm_domain_iterator_isdone` in `vm_domain_iterator_run` up at the top? >>>> - The parameter names for functions/syscalls can be omitted in the declarations. >>>> - The change to vm_page.c seems like it could be committed separate from the NUMA changes. >>>> - `However without it'll kernel panic below - the code didn’t` -> `However without the following check, the kernel will panic below; the code didn’t` >>>> - vm_domain_iterator_run seems like it could use one of the queue(9) data structures. >>>> - Why is OPT_TID 1001? >>>> - `int error;` should come after `cpuset_t set;` per alignment and style(9). >>>> - `atoi` parsing is better handled via strtoll, etc. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> -NGie >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D4E453E6-A92B-4A23-A89E-DBCFA229CB31>