r351456 only loosened restrictions on some of the less common thread types; it was accidentally necessary, but not sufficient. 351494, 351495, and 351496 (at least) are also necessary, once the issue was identified.
Best, Conrad On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 9:25 AM John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > 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 <kostik...@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 _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
