on 31/05/2011 16:34 Attilio Rao said the following: > 2011/5/31 Andriy Gapon <avg_at_freebsd.org>: >> on 29/05/2011 06:06 Attilio Rao said the following: >>> 2011/5/28 Attilio Rao <attilio_at_freebsd.org>: >>>> 2011/5/25 Andriy Gapon <avg_at_freebsd.org>: >>>>> The patch is here: >>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/cpu-offline-sysctl.diff >>>>> It should implement the strategy described above. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't see the point in keeping alive mp_grab_cpu_hlt() and >>>> supporting, actually. >>>> >>>> On the top of your patch I made some modifies that use directly >>>> ap_watchdog() in cpu_idle() which I think is better for the time >>>> being: >>>> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/avg_rem_cpuhlt.diff >> >> Yes, I agree, thank you. >> >>>> If you are happy with it, just commit as long as Garrett tests that. >> >> >> OK. Waiting for test feedback. >> >>>> On a second round of changes we can discuss mp_watchdog and eventual >>>> removal / improvements to it. >>> >>> I almost forgot: this change would also require an UPDATE entry, where >>> you explicitly mention the "new" way to deal with CPUs. Use your >>> prefer wording. >> >> Sure. Thank you! >> >> BTW, I guess there would be no reason to MFC this change? > > You mean no reason to not MFC it? I meant exactly what I asked :-) As in: I didn't see any reason for MFC. > In general, I think that users may expect those sysctls to be alive > (IMHO we should consider sysctls to be part of the userland API) so > that we can add some more, but we should not axe them. > So probabilly MFC is not the best option here. -- Andriy GaponReceived on Tue May 31 2011 - 11:40:48 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:14 UTC