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 06/11/15 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 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
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 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
setting tunables in stable/10 vs head?
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?
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.)
Thanks for any help with this, rick
___
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"
