Re: setting tunables in stable/10 vs head?
On 06/11/15 06:23, hiren panchasara wrote: On 06/10/15 at 10:07P, Ian Lepore wrote: On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 20:44 -0700, hiren panchasara wrote: On 06/10/15 at 04:13P, Rick Macklem wrote: Hi, I just MFC'd a patch from head to stable/10 that defines some tunables using CTLFLAG_RDTUN. Although the MFC didn't break anything, the tunables don't get changed by the values in /boot/loader.conf. By applying a patch like this: SYSCTL_DECL(_vfs_nfsd); int nfsrv_statehashsize = NFSSTATEHASHSIZE; +TUNABLE_INT(vfs.nfsd.statehashsize, nfsrv_statehashsize); SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_nfsd, OID_AUTO, statehashsize, CTLFLAG_RDTUN, nfsrv_statehashsize, 0, Size of state hash table set via loader.conf); they get set ok. So, is this correct or have I done something stupid? I believe that is correct. hans changed how they are declared with r267961 and now you do not need TUNABLE_INT() on -head. And, if it correct, do I commit a patch like the above directly to stable/10. (It seems that TUNABLE_INT() is discouraged for -head.) That's the correct way, afaik. Cheers, Hiren Is there a reason the sysctl tunable flag changes can't be MFC'd? Leaving changes that widespread un-mfc'd just makes for lots of merge conflicts as time goes on (and can also lead to merged code behaving differently than expected). Added Hans to answer the question. Hi, I wasn't sure if MFC'ing would break anything with regard to binary compatibility, so the change was kept in -head and only the broken SYSCTLs were fixed in 10- and 9- . --HPS ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: setting tunables in stable/10 vs head?
On 06/10/15 22:13, Rick Macklem wrote: So, is this correct or have I done something stupid? Yes, this is correct. --HPS ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: setting tunables in stable/10 vs head?
On 06/10/15 at 04:13P, Rick Macklem wrote: Hi, I just MFC'd a patch from head to stable/10 that defines some tunables using CTLFLAG_RDTUN. Although the MFC didn't break anything, the tunables don't get changed by the values in /boot/loader.conf. By applying a patch like this: SYSCTL_DECL(_vfs_nfsd); int nfsrv_statehashsize = NFSSTATEHASHSIZE; +TUNABLE_INT(vfs.nfsd.statehashsize, nfsrv_statehashsize); SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_nfsd, OID_AUTO, statehashsize, CTLFLAG_RDTUN, nfsrv_statehashsize, 0, Size of state hash table set via loader.conf); they get set ok. So, is this correct or have I done something stupid? I believe that is correct. hans changed how they are declared with r267961 and now you do not need TUNABLE_INT() on -head. And, if it correct, do I commit a patch like the above directly to stable/10. (It seems that TUNABLE_INT() is discouraged for -head.) That's the correct way, afaik. Cheers, Hiren pgp2I3ZTCmLLR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: setting tunables in stable/10 vs head?
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 20:44 -0700, hiren panchasara wrote: On 06/10/15 at 04:13P, Rick Macklem wrote: Hi, I just MFC'd a patch from head to stable/10 that defines some tunables using CTLFLAG_RDTUN. Although the MFC didn't break anything, the tunables don't get changed by the values in /boot/loader.conf. By applying a patch like this: SYSCTL_DECL(_vfs_nfsd); intnfsrv_statehashsize = NFSSTATEHASHSIZE; +TUNABLE_INT(vfs.nfsd.statehashsize, nfsrv_statehashsize); SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_nfsd, OID_AUTO, statehashsize, CTLFLAG_RDTUN, nfsrv_statehashsize, 0, Size of state hash table set via loader.conf); they get set ok. So, is this correct or have I done something stupid? I believe that is correct. hans changed how they are declared with r267961 and now you do not need TUNABLE_INT() on -head. And, if it correct, do I commit a patch like the above directly to stable/10. (It seems that TUNABLE_INT() is discouraged for -head.) That's the correct way, afaik. Cheers, Hiren Is there a reason the sysctl tunable flag changes can't be MFC'd? Leaving changes that widespread un-mfc'd just makes for lots of merge conflicts as time goes on (and can also lead to merged code behaving differently than expected). -- Ian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: setting tunables in stable/10 vs head?
On 06/10/15 at 10:07P, Ian Lepore wrote: On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 20:44 -0700, hiren panchasara wrote: On 06/10/15 at 04:13P, Rick Macklem wrote: Hi, I just MFC'd a patch from head to stable/10 that defines some tunables using CTLFLAG_RDTUN. Although the MFC didn't break anything, the tunables don't get changed by the values in /boot/loader.conf. By applying a patch like this: SYSCTL_DECL(_vfs_nfsd); int nfsrv_statehashsize = NFSSTATEHASHSIZE; +TUNABLE_INT(vfs.nfsd.statehashsize, nfsrv_statehashsize); SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_nfsd, OID_AUTO, statehashsize, CTLFLAG_RDTUN, nfsrv_statehashsize, 0, Size of state hash table set via loader.conf); they get set ok. So, is this correct or have I done something stupid? I believe that is correct. hans changed how they are declared with r267961 and now you do not need TUNABLE_INT() on -head. And, if it correct, do I commit a patch like the above directly to stable/10. (It seems that TUNABLE_INT() is discouraged for -head.) That's the correct way, afaik. Cheers, Hiren Is there a reason the sysctl tunable flag changes can't be MFC'd? Leaving changes that widespread un-mfc'd just makes for lots of merge conflicts as time goes on (and can also lead to merged code behaving differently than expected). Added Hans to answer the question. Cheers, Hiren pgprti_fwNyHA.pgp Description: PGP signature
