06:10:46 [illumos-gate] 15278 libsmb: unused parameter -- Toomas Soome 06:32:17 happy new year everyone, I have question regarding to the API to equate to sched_setaffinity on linux, or cpuset_getaffinity on FreeBSD, what’s the API for illumos? (seems Oracle Solaris had processor_affinity), is there anyone could answer? I’m going to bind postgres process on assigned cores, thanks in advance 07:09:18 tozhu pooladm to assign cpu pool for example 07:10:55 or use FSS and assign cpu shares 07:15:59 good idea with FSS 07:16:05 tsoome_ : thanks , we just use C code to bind the process, 07:16:34 I don’t know how to do by FSS 07:16:39 is there any C api ? 07:17:02 ye, there is api to create cpu set, but not the processor_affinity() 07:17:46 tsoome_ : would you like to show me an example? or is there any docs for the API ? 07:18:31 see psrset manual, it has further links 07:19:38 but the truth is, this feature set is from the solaris 10/opensolaris fork time... 07:21:02 tsoome_: do you say pset_create / pset_bind ? 07:21:12 yes. 07:21:41 and pset_assign 07:22:11 needs set projects in /etc/projects file 07:23:42 yes, thats the feature to allow admin to create cpu set, assign processes to use that set or create pooled resource and assign processes to use resource pools. 07:24:32 processor_affinity can’t be used on illumos? 07:24:57 we do not have that api 07:27:27 the world has moved on since the fork and we only have so many people to do things. This kind of development needs time and motivation.... 07:28:46 got it, thank you all for the hard work 07:29:11 if you are working for some company, then company tends to have priorities of their own... 07:29:27 by the way, needs set this value in the project?; https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37838_01/html/E61042/gpusj.html#scrolltoc 07:37:35 that could be. I haven't used processor_affinity API myself (the solaris installations are being replaced by exadata/cloud bits here and practically everything is run on linux or windows). 11:40:57 For https://www.illumos.org/issues/15271 andyf pointed out using `set viona:viona_force_copy_state = 2` probably also works, I just verified it did by booting to omnios-bloody package set from 20221228 without my change 11:40:59 → FEATURE 15271: Want tunable to force viona to always copy tx buffers (New) | https://code.illumos.org/c/illumos-gate/+/2565 11:41:23 The dtrace result with this set for `dtrace -n 'fbt:viona:viona_tx_copy_needed:return { printf("%u", args[1]) }'` was the same a with my patch 11:41:36 However is it OK to modify the enum directly ? 11:42:29 (https://github.com/illumos/illumos-gate/blob/a56510328f750698b33a4c5fc2756158d23fc887/usr/src/uts/intel/io/viona/viona_tx.c#L60-L64) 11:46:12 There's the same question if you set a tuneable to boolean_t, since that's an enum. system(5) says `set` can modify an integer, and they're ints, so I expect it's ok but I don't think I've seen a boolean or enum tuneable before. 11:52:27 I based it of https://github.com/omniosorg/illumos-omnios/commit/ed9257aea654f9ec95367baa8f0f7c32ac5c9192 11:53:06 I might just have chosen a bad example to copy though 11:53:36 Heh, just a short memory then! 11:53:46 I did set that one to get the guid change quicker on my bloody setup 11:53:49 So I know that worked :D 18:33:38 [illumos-gate] 15280 uts: remove pragma ident -- Toomas Soome 21:10:11 tsoome: am I right in thinking that #1128 means we have a kb8042 instance that isn't 0? 21:10:14 how the heck? 21:10:39 OS image migrated to different system 21:13:58 ah 21:45:21 in my case, I was switching UTM system between Q35 and i440FX 22:21:50 I forgot how long builds take when you have a shadow compiler and smatch works 22:22:27 tsoome: do you envision clang (or even better clang-tidy) replacing smatch? 22:22:43 unless there's a way to get clang to output the same info clang-tidy would. 22:23:00 I've considered hacking make to write out the json that makes clang-tidy more convenient to use 22:23:23 or a lil tool to create it from .make.state 22:25:19 perhaps, but I think it is still too early to tell... 22:26:24 my only real input is that in my experience clang-tidy (unless you can tell clang to run the full analyzer passes), gives much more detailed output about subtle issues. 22:26:34 and perhaps v. clang _any_ output about subtle issues. 22:26:39 of course, I haven't really checked what is the difference with current smatch (assuming it has been developed;) 22:26:51 it gives the me the entire voluminous control flow of uninitialized uses for eg 22:27:21 yes, I like that with clang:) 22:27:31 can I tell the compiler to do that rather than running clang-tidy separately? 22:27:39 'cos if so ignore me about a clang-tidy pass, obviously :) 22:27:53 there are some interesting bits of smatch we don't use... though unsure how useful they'd be for us 22:28:29 like you can tag stuff with something that indiciates it's a ptr w/ a userland address vs. kernel address to catch some stuff 22:28:34 IIUC 22:28:39 (and IIRC)