truss kills process?

2012-10-11 Thread Mateusz Kwiatkowski
Hello, We noticed quite strange behaviour of truss: # sleep 100 [1] 93212 # truss -p 93212

curcpu false positive?

2012-10-11 Thread Erik Cederstrand
Hello, I'm looking at some Clang Static Analyzer reports in the kernel, and a lot of them point back to a null pointer dereference in __pcpu_type (sys/amd64/include/pcpu.h:102) which is defined as: 102 /* 103 * Evaluates to the type of the per-cpu variable name. 104 */ 105

Re: curcpu false positive?

2012-10-11 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 11/10/2012 16:06 Erik Cederstrand said the following: Hello, I'm looking at some Clang Static Analyzer reports in the kernel, and a lot of them point back to a null pointer dereference in __pcpu_type (sys/amd64/include/pcpu.h:102) which is defined as: 102/* 103* Evaluates to

Re: NFS server bottlenecks

2012-10-11 Thread Nikolay Denev
On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Nikolay Denev nde...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 11, 2012, at 1:09 AM, Rick Macklem rmack...@uoguelph.ca wrote: Nikolay Denev wrote: On Oct 10, 2012, at 3:18 AM, Rick Macklem rmack...@uoguelph.ca wrote: Nikolay Denev wrote: On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:36 AM, Rick

Re: NFS server bottlenecks

2012-10-11 Thread Nikolay Denev
On Oct 11, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Nikolay Denev nde...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Nikolay Denev nde...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 11, 2012, at 1:09 AM, Rick Macklem rmack...@uoguelph.ca wrote: Nikolay Denev wrote: On Oct 10, 2012, at 3:18 AM, Rick Macklem

Re: NFS server bottlenecks

2012-10-11 Thread Rick Macklem
Nikolay Denev wrote: On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Nikolay Denev nde...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 11, 2012, at 1:09 AM, Rick Macklem rmack...@uoguelph.ca wrote: Nikolay Denev wrote: On Oct 10, 2012, at 3:18 AM, Rick Macklem rmack...@uoguelph.ca wrote: Nikolay Denev wrote: On

Re: NFS server bottlenecks

2012-10-11 Thread Rick Macklem
Nikolay Denev wrote: On Oct 11, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Nikolay Denev nde...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 11, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Nikolay Denev nde...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 11, 2012, at 1:09 AM, Rick Macklem rmack...@uoguelph.ca wrote: Nikolay Denev wrote: On Oct 10, 2012, at 3:18 AM, Rick

Re: NFS server bottlenecks

2012-10-11 Thread Rick Macklem
Oops, I didn't get the readahead option description quite right in the last post. The default read ahead is 1, which does result in rsize * 2, since there is the read + 1 readahead. rsize * 16 would actually be for the option readahead=15 and for readahead=16 the calculation would be rsize * 17.