Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:07:18 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@netflix.com> To: Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Kevin Bowling <kbowling@llnw.com>, gallatin@netflix.com Subject: Re: small patch for numactl. Comments? Message-ID: <D6D19BFB-CD33-4666-8D11-962FDC893AD5@netflix.com> In-Reply-To: <20171114172134.GD6265@mcvoy.com> References: <20171114020138.GA18863@mcvoy.com> <20171114171032.ez6pxk3yrlczplvi@mguzik> <20171114172134.GD6265@mcvoy.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> On Nov 14, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote: > > 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. FWIW, communicating state via environment variables is not a common pattern in the core FreeBSD userland tools. It’s a bit more common in the contributed tools. That’s probably why people are wishy-washy about your proposal. That said, there’s no architectural rule against what you’re proposing, it’s useful, and it’s not invasive and needing long discussion. Scotthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D6D19BFB-CD33-4666-8D11-962FDC893AD5>