Fat Cat Media Newsletter
Fat Cat Media Newsletter Newsletter Subtitle (Month 2002) ~~ Greetings! Fat Cat have returned from Miami a bit jaded but ready to go - See the pictures and stories from Miami on the site very soon. We are taking a long awaited rest this weekend but we return the following weekend with our history of house night 'Remember The Daze' @ Flux. After the huge response from the launch party last month, please ensure that you email your requirements as soon as you can ~~ in this issue ~~ * Sugarfunk 'Remember The Daze' * Fused @ The Cross Sugarfunk 'Remember The Daze' ~~ Saturday 12th April2003, sees the return of Sugarfunks sister night - 'Remember The Daze' at Flux, Southend Road, Beckenham, Kent. DJ's Ant Packham Dean Fererro will joined by a legendary producer/DJ Daryl B for night of non stop dancing with music from 1989 - 2003. Expect a sore throat on Sunday morning as the vocals are churned out one by one. Pictures of the launch night will be available shortly on www.fatcatmedia.tv. For concession guestlist reservations of £10.00 - Please send your details to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember Girls are FREE before 10pm. Fused @ The Cross ~~ Easter Thursday 17th April 2003 - 9pm - late. Clockwork Orange meets Shakavara for the launch of this stunning new night and Londons long established and much loved Cross. Featuring DJ's Joey Negro, Bobbie Steve, Ant Packham, James Parker, Andy Manston Kriss da Rang provide the funky sounds for this launch night. Fat Cat has negotiated a concession guest list for this event, so please submit your name and name email address of your guests to; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~ Quick Links... ~~ The Cross http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=zph4yun6.aksdmun6.avpizun6p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.the-cross.co.uk Holmes Place http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=zph4yun6.aksdmun6.8i5cmun6p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.holmeplace.com Ibiza Online http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=zph4yun6.aksdmun6.7i5cmun6p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiza-online.com ~~ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: +442086589362 web: http://www.fatcatmedia.tv ~~ This email was sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], by Fat Cat Media. Update your profile http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/d.jsp?p=oom=1011061323653[EMAIL PROTECTED] Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM) http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/d.jsp?p=unm=1011061323653[EMAIL PROTECTED] Privacy Policy: http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp Powered by Constant Contact(R) www.constantcontact.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fat Cat Media Newsletter
Sorry, this one slipped through. I had just reset the spamassassin bayesian filter because of a rather silly thing that I did that poisoned the database. (hint: dont whitelist your mailing list sender address, that causes most spam to be scored as about -90 or so and autolearned as ham) Its interesting to see the mime stripping at work though. This had fairly nasty tracking and javascript in the original email. Unfortunately the stripping makes downstream spamassassins even less interested. Mine at home rated the cleaned version at 0.5 :-(. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars - JMS/B5 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mbuf question again
Hi I would like to know if it is possible to write a program to check which mbuf's are allocated to which programs that are currently running, or is this totally not possible? If it is possible, could someone point me in the right direction as in which libraries / functions / reading material i would need to look at in order to do so? Thanx Cole / Stalker ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Expensive timeout(9) function...
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Yar Tikhiy writes: Hello, I'm getting the following DIAGNOSTIC messages on my -CURRENT box: Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc02677e0(0) 0.006095064 s (it's uma_timeout(), which triggers the warning once per boot) Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc0141610(0xc0dfcc00) 0.006581587 s Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc0141610(0xc0dfcc00) 0.008510173 s (and this one is fxp_tick(); it triggers the warning from time to time) Are those warnings harmless? Yes, but indicative of code which needs attention, but harmless. As far as my understanding of the issue reaches, a timeout function is called under protection of the Giant mutex unless it's marked as MP-safe, and that's the reason to spend as little time as possible in it. Right? Yes, but there are other reasons why you would generally not want to spend too much time in the timeout function, mostly that it may screw up other time-critical things in the system. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Expensive timeout(9) function...
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 02:37:45PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Yar Tikhiy writes: Hello, I'm getting the following DIAGNOSTIC messages on my -CURRENT box: Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc02677e0(0) 0.006095064 s (it's uma_timeout(), which triggers the warning once per boot) Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc0141610(0xc0dfcc00) 0.006581587 s Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc0141610(0xc0dfcc00) 0.008510173 s (and this one is fxp_tick(); it triggers the warning from time to time) Are those warnings harmless? Yes, but indicative of code which needs attention, but harmless. As far as my understanding of the issue reaches, a timeout function is called under protection of the Giant mutex unless it's marked as MP-safe, and that's the reason to spend as little time as possible in it. Right? Yes, but there are other reasons why you would generally not want to spend too much time in the timeout function, mostly that it may screw up other time-critical things in the system. Thanks for your explanation! I hope this little thread will draw the attention of the responsible or interested parties to the warnings ;-) -- Yar ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mbuf question again
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 11:34:03AM +0200, Stalker wrote: Hi I would like to know if it is possible to write a program to check which mbuf's are allocated to which programs that are currently running, or is this totally not possible? If it is possible, could someone point me in the right direction as in which libraries / functions / reading material i would need to look at in order to do so? It's not so easy. mbuf objects primary used to represent fragmented packet in the system or incapsulated packet as list of protocols headers and packet data. mbuf objects are allocated when NIC receive packet and transfer it from NIC's memory to main RAM. In that moment mbuf object is unqueued and referenced only by interface driver code so you cant find a system structure points to mbuf object. Packet incapsulated in mbuf object can be bridged out, fast-forwarded or queued for other processing. Network stack then dequeue it and pop it up until packet is added to process socket buffer sockbuf (see sys/socketvar.h) [*] At this moment you can map mbufs against running processes. But in the context of fixing network problems it can be total useless to view this mapping. Same process is on sending packets. Theoretically it's possible to write kernel module to print all allocated mbufs in the system but it's much easy just to coredump the kernel, save core and use gdb for browsing. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Expensive timeout(9) function...
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Yar Tikhiy wrote: Thanks for your explanation! I hope this little thread will draw the attention of the responsible or interested parties to the warnings ;-) -- Yar The _tick routines are not easy to fix, FWIW. MII access functions are quite time consuming almost any way you look at it. Well, actually, I figured out a way to make them much faster, but it's been a few months since I looked at that patch, I guess I should pull it back up and post it somewhere... Mike Silby Silbersack ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Expensive timeout(9) function...
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Silbersack writes: On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Yar Tikhiy wrote: Thanks for your explanation! I hope this little thread will draw the attention of the responsible or interested parties to the warnings ;-) -- Yar The _tick routines are not easy to fix, FWIW. MII access functions are quite time consuming almost any way you look at it. I'm not sure the _tick functions should even be called from a timeout(). In many ways it seems preferable to me to have then run sequentially from a single thread, possibly via a task-queue. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Expensive timeout(9) function...
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: The _tick routines are not easy to fix, FWIW. MII access functions are quite time consuming almost any way you look at it. I'm not sure the _tick functions should even be called from a timeout(). In many ways it seems preferable to me to have then run sequentially from a single thread, possibly via a task-queue. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 Yeah, I suppose limiting it to one mii_tick routine per second would help somewhat... but it's still a bad situation. Actually, we could improve it quite a bit if someone adds NANODELAY() (hint, hint...) Couldn't we have a first-run nanodelay that just used nanotime to do the counting for it? Mike Silby Silbersack ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Expensive timeout(9) function...
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Silbersack writes: Yeah, I suppose limiting it to one mii_tick routine per second would help somewhat... but it's still a bad situation. I wasn't advocating slowing it down that much, merely trying to run it sequentially out of timeout()'s hair. Actually, we could improve it quite a bit if someone adds NANODELAY() (hint, hint...) Couldn't we have a first-run nanodelay that just used nanotime to do the counting for it? It should probably be called either nanosleep() or nanospin(). It is not a trivial task to do it. Writing the short end calibration code to be sufficiently robust and precise will take some time and a lot of experiments. There used to be a crumbled note with this somewhere in my stack of TODO items, but by now I suspect that it is ironed perfectly flat from the weight of all the stuff on top of it. But to add to my knowledge-base: What length of delays are you looking for ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Expensive timeout(9) function...
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Yeah, I suppose limiting it to one mii_tick routine per second would help somewhat... but it's still a bad situation. I wasn't advocating slowing it down that much, merely trying to run it sequentially out of timeout()'s hair. shrug Either way would be fine, I don't think there's any major need for a poll once per second. There used to be a crumbled note with this somewhere in my stack of TODO items, but by now I suspect that it is ironed perfectly flat from the weight of all the stuff on top of it. But to add to my knowledge-base: What length of delays are you looking for ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 I'd be happy with 100ns granularity (rounded up), with no major concern for jitter. For the purposes of the MII delays, all we really care is that we wait long enough; if we wait too long sometimes, that's no big deal. For reference, 3Com's documentation states that 40ns should be enough, but our current DELAY on i386 seems to take a few uS last time I checked. So, even if you can only get 300ns granularity, that'd still save a lot of time. This is why I suggested using something which just reads nanotime in a loop; nanotime should be accurate enough, right? BTW, does it appear to everyone else that half of these messages are getting dropped on their way to the lists, or is it just me? Mike Silby Silbersack ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mbuf question again
Stalker wrote: I would like to know if it is possible to write a program to check which mbuf's are allocated to which programs that are currently running, or is this totally not possible? If it is possible, could someone point me in the right direction as in which libraries / functions / reading material i would need to look at in order to do so? The mbufs are not accounted to particular processes; our TCP/IP stack is kernel code, not user space code. 8-). If you look at the output of netstat -aA, you will get the application data pending in so_snd and so_rcv queues. You don't get the mbufs in progress, and you don't get the size of the freelist; you can approximate the second one with vmstat -m, but the in progress numbers are simply not available, because it's more important to use the memory and CPU for actual data, rather than accounting structures. -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [hackers] Re: Realtek
An address that works. Without further knowledge of your laptop, it is impossible for me to say. You will have to find this out by trial and error. Some folks like 0xf800, others like 0x4 and one uses 0xd4000, but the last one I don't recommend. 0xf800 seems to work on my StinkPad (still can't get the serial port to work though). You have to enable it using the PS2 'DOS' command (the Windows one won't work, for whatever reason). Once it's probably enabled/configured, it acts like any other normal serial port. (It's a pain to get it working right, since it involves dozens of reboots in order to understand what exactly the configuration *should* be. From memory, it wasn't as obvious as it could have been.) Nate ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
