[rfc] remove hlt_cpus et al sysctls and related code

Andriy Gapon avg at FreeBSD.org
Tue May 31 13:40:48 UTC 2011


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 Gapon


More information about the freebsd-arch mailing list