On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:01:02PM +0000, Masoom Shaikh wrote: > On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Ivan Voras <ivo...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 28 March 2010 16:42, Masoom Shaikh <masoom.sha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> lets assume if this is h/w problem, then how can other OSes overcome > >> this ? is there a way to make FreeBSD ignore this as well, let it > >> result in reasonable performance penalty. > > > > Very probably, if only we could detect where the problem is. > > Try adding "options PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE=128" to the kernel > > this option is already there
The key word in Ivan's phrase is "less mangled". Neither use of or increasing PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE solves the problem of interspersed console output. I've been ranting/raving about this problem for years now; it truly looks like a mutex lock issue (or lack of such lock), but I've been told numerous times that isn't the case. To developers: what incentives would help get this issue well-needed attention? This problem makes kernel debugging, panic analysis, and other console-oriented viewing basically impossible. -- | Jeremy Chadwick j...@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"