Re: Make files for /usr/src/sys/dev/*
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 04:10:31 +0059 "Alexej Sokolov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > where are the Makefiles for drivers in /usr/src/dev/* For drivers which can be built as modules, they're in /usr/src/sys/modules/* -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: vm_map_find
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:10:25PM -0500, Robert Noland wrote: > On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 04:42 +0059, Alexej Sokolov wrote: > > Hello, > > my question is about vm_map_find (9) > > int > > vm_map_find(vm_map_t map, vm_object_t object, vm_ooffset_t offset, > > vm_offset_t *addr, vm_size_t length, boolean_t find_space, > > vm_prot_t prot, vm_prot_t max, int cow); > > > > Could anyone explain what exactly parameter "cow" for ? Which values and > > meanings ? > > Well, cow is COPY_ON_WRITE. See vm_map(9) for the list of flags. > > robert. Ok, thanx a lot, but I find it strange that the info about possible values of "cow" isn't present in man pages vm_map_insert and vm_map_find Thnks again! > > > man page dives not enough informations about it. > > > > Thanks > > ___ > > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: vm_map_find
On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 04:42 +0059, Alexej Sokolov wrote: > Hello, > my question is about vm_map_find (9) > int > vm_map_find(vm_map_t map, vm_object_t object, vm_ooffset_t offset, > vm_offset_t *addr, vm_size_t length, boolean_t find_space, > vm_prot_t prot, vm_prot_t max, int cow); > > Could anyone explain what exactly parameter "cow" for ? Which values and > meanings ? Well, cow is COPY_ON_WRITE. See vm_map(9) for the list of flags. robert. > man page dives not enough informations about it. > > Thanks > ___ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Make files for /usr/src/sys/dev/*
hello, where are the Makefiles for drivers in /usr/src/dev/* % uname -v FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE-p5 Thanks ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
vm_map_find
Hello, my question is about vm_map_find (9) int vm_map_find(vm_map_t map, vm_object_t object, vm_ooffset_t offset, vm_offset_t *addr, vm_size_t length, boolean_t find_space, vm_prot_t prot, vm_prot_t max, int cow); Could anyone explain what exactly parameter "cow" for ? Which values and meanings ? man page dives not enough informations about it. Thanks ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
KLD loading, liking
Hello, i am looking for some infos (may be papers) about how KLD linker works. After kompiling the KLD contain two important sections: % readelf -S mymod.ko | grep set [ 7] set_sysinit_set PROGBITS0560 000560 04 00 A 0 0 4 [ 8] set_modmetadata_s PROGBITS0564 000564 08 00 A 0 0 4 . sysinit_set -contain a structure with a pointer to function which will be called by loading of KLD modmetadata_set - what kind of information is there and which functions of linking/loading use it ? What exact does the macro MODULE_DEPEND ? The man page is to short, and I guess it tell no all things that the macro does. Thanks ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Request for individuals interested in reviewing test / python topics
Hello Hackers and Porters, I'm currently working on a proposal to the FreeBSD foundation to use Python Nose as a testing framework for writing tests. If there are any individuals who are experienced and interested helping review and provide insight into my plans for using nose as a testing framework / backend, it would be extremely helpful. By completing this work, we could finally settle on a single regression and unit testing framework for writing future testcases, which would in turn reduce the required overhead on the release team during releases, which may reduce ports freeze periods, also reduce development time while increasing productivity within the FreeBSD community for new feature and regression testing in the of the entire system and the ports / packages we provide to the community. Thanks, -Garrett ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: assigning interrupts
On Friday 14 November 2008 03:23:06 am Ronnel P. Maglasang wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > On Thursday 13 November 2008 05:03:20 am Ronnel P. Maglasang wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> > >> Is there a way to explicitly assign an interrupt > >> of a device? I'm running on 6.3 and the two NICs > >> share the same interrupt. Obviously this will affect > >> the performance if the NICs are exposed to heavy network > >> traffic. > >> > >> # vmstat -i > >> interrupt total rate > >> > >> irq11: em0 vr0+ 1081099 77 > >> > >> Total 16958562 1222 > >> > >> > >> Looking at the driver's code, I have the initial though > >> that this is the place where I can modify. > >> > >> -- > >> adapter->res_interrupt = bus_alloc_resource_any(dev, > >> SYS_RES_IRQ, &rid, RF_SHAREABLE | RF_ACTIVE); > >> -- > >> > >> I've tried changing RF_SHAREABLE to RF_ALLOCATED or other > >> values but still could not get the desired result and worst > >> the device fail to initialize. Is this possible in 6.3? > >> > > > > You can not easily assign them, no. In many cases the interrupt pins from the > > devices may be hardwired to a single input pin on an interrupt controller. > > In that case there is nothing you can do. You can read more about the gory > > details here: > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~jhb/papers/bsdcan/2007/ > > > > > What was changed in 7.x in terms of assigning interrupts? I have another > box running on 7.0 (2 NICs). I noticed there are no devices sharing > interrupts. But if 6.x is installed on the same box (previous installation), > the two NICs will share the same interrupt. I'm now looking at the drivers. > I assume this is not NIC-firmware related. MSI. Newer 6.x (6.4, possibly 6.3; if not by default on 6.3 then it can be enabled on 6.3 via 'hw.pci.enable_msi=1' tunable) will do it as well. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: looking for something like a union file system
On Fri, 14.11.2008 at 17:44:39 -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: > I am using a dev tool that maintains a "split" source tree for currently > worked on files and those in the repo (aegis which is slightly different > then how svn or cvs does it) and my the default build system assumes it > is all in one tree thus I want someway of merge the two dirs and > have a copy on write via a special command for it (i.e. if I start to > edit foo.c it automatically checks it out for me) any ideas? mount_unionfs(8) or the FUSE equivalent Cheers, Ulrich Spoerlein -- It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak, and remove all doubt. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NET.ISR and CPU utilization performance w/ HP DL 585 using FreeBSD 7.1 Beta2
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:59:16AM -0800, Won De Erick wrote: > Hello, > > I tested HP DL 585 (16 CPUs, w/ built-in Broadcom NICs) running FreeBSD 7.1 > Beta2 under heavy network traffic (TCP). > > SCENARIO A : Bombarded w/ TCP traffic: > > When net.isr.direct=1, > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND >52 root1 -68- 0K16K CPU11 b 38:43 95.36% irq32: bce1 >51 root1 -68- 0K16K CPU10 a 25:50 85.16% irq31: bce0 >16 root1 171 ki31 0K16K RUNa 65:39 15.97% idle: cpu10 >28 root1 -32- 0K16K WAIT 8 12:28 5.18% swi4: clock > sio >15 root1 171 ki31 0K16K RUNb 52:46 3.76% idle: cpu11 >45 root1 -64- 0K16K WAIT 7 7:29 1.17% irq17: uhci0 >47 root1 -64- 0K16K WAIT 6 1:11 0.10% irq16: ciss0 >27 root1 -44- 0K16K WAIT 0 28:52 0.00% swi1: net > > When net.isr.direct=0, > >16 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU10 a 106:46 92.58% idle: cpu10 >19 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU7 7 133:37 89.16% idle: cpu7 >27 root1 -44- 0K16K WAIT 0 52:20 76.37% swi1: net >25 root1 171 ki31 0K16K RUN1 132:30 70.26% idle: cpu1 >26 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU0 0 111:58 64.36% idle: cpu0 >15 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU11 b 81:09 57.76% idle: cpu11 >52 root1 -68- 0K16K WAIT b 64:00 42.97% irq32: bce1 >51 root1 -68- 0K16K WAIT a 38:22 12.26% irq31: bce0 >45 root1 -64- 0K16K WAIT 7 11:31 12.06% irq17: uhci0 >47 root1 -64- 0K16K WAIT 6 1:54 3.66% irq16: ciss0 >28 root1 -32- 0K16K WAIT 8 16:01 0.00% swi4: clock > sio > > Overall CPU utilization has significantly dropped, but I noticed that swi1 > has taken CPU0 with high utilization when the net.isr.direct=0. > What does this mean? > > SCENARIO B : Bombarded w/ more TCP traffic: > > Worst thing, the box has become unresponsive (can't be PINGed, inaccessible > through SSH) after more traffic was added retaining net.isr.direct=0. > This is due maybe to the 100% utilization on CPU0 for sw1:net (see below > result, first line). bce's and swi's seem to race each other based on the > result when net.isr.direct=1, swi1 . > The rest of the CPUs are sitting pretty (100% Idle). Can you shed some lights > on this? > > When net.isr.direct=0: >27 root1 -44- 0K16K CPU0 0 5:45 100.00% swi1: net >11 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU15 0 0:00 100.00% idle: cpu15 >13 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU13 0 0:00 100.00% idle: cpu13 >17 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU9 0 0:00 100.00% idle: cpu9 >18 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU8 0 0:00 100.00% idle: cpu8 >21 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU5 5 146:17 99.17% idle: cpu5 >22 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU4 4 146:17 99.07% idle: cpu4 >14 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU12 0 0:00 99.07% idle: cpu12 >16 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU10 a 109:33 98.88% idle: cpu10 >15 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU11 b 86:36 93.55% idle: cpu11 >52 root1 -68- 0K16K WAIT b 59:42 13.87% irq32: bce1 > > When net.isr.direct=1, >52 root1 -68- 0K16K CPU11 b 55:04 97.66% irq32: bce1 >51 root1 -68- 0K16K CPU10 a 33:52 73.88% irq31: bce0 >16 root1 171 ki31 0K16K RUNa 102:42 26.86% idle: cpu10 >15 root1 171 ki31 0K16K RUNb 81:20 3.17% idle: cpu11 >28 root1 -32- 0K16K WAIT e 13:40 0.00% swi4: clock > sio > > With regards to bandwidth in all scenarios above, the result is extremely low > (expected is several hundred Mb/s). Why? > > - iface Rx Tx > Total > > == > bce0: 4.69 Mb/s 10.49 Mb/s 15.18 > Mb/s > bce1: 20.66 Mb/s4.68 Mb/s 25.34 > Mb/s > lo0: 0.00 b/s0.00 b/s0.00 > b/s > > -- > total: 25.35 Mb/s 15.17 Mb/s 40.52 > Mb/s > > > Thanks, > > Won And does this behaviour change if you use some other brand of NIC? -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977.
NET.ISR and CPU utilization performance w/ HP DL 585 using FreeBSD 7.1 Beta2
Hello, I tested HP DL 585 (16 CPUs, w/ built-in Broadcom NICs) running FreeBSD 7.1 Beta2 under heavy network traffic (TCP). SCENARIO A : Bombarded w/ TCP traffic: When net.isr.direct=1, PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 52 root1 -68- 0K16K CPU11 b 38:43 95.36% irq32: bce1 51 root1 -68- 0K16K CPU10 a 25:50 85.16% irq31: bce0 16 root1 171 ki31 0K16K RUNa 65:39 15.97% idle: cpu10 28 root1 -32- 0K16K WAIT 8 12:28 5.18% swi4: clock sio 15 root1 171 ki31 0K16K RUNb 52:46 3.76% idle: cpu11 45 root1 -64- 0K16K WAIT 7 7:29 1.17% irq17: uhci0 47 root1 -64- 0K16K WAIT 6 1:11 0.10% irq16: ciss0 27 root1 -44- 0K16K WAIT 0 28:52 0.00% swi1: net When net.isr.direct=0, 16 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU10 a 106:46 92.58% idle: cpu10 19 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU7 7 133:37 89.16% idle: cpu7 27 root1 -44- 0K16K WAIT 0 52:20 76.37% swi1: net 25 root1 171 ki31 0K16K RUN1 132:30 70.26% idle: cpu1 26 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU0 0 111:58 64.36% idle: cpu0 15 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU11 b 81:09 57.76% idle: cpu11 52 root1 -68- 0K16K WAIT b 64:00 42.97% irq32: bce1 51 root1 -68- 0K16K WAIT a 38:22 12.26% irq31: bce0 45 root1 -64- 0K16K WAIT 7 11:31 12.06% irq17: uhci0 47 root1 -64- 0K16K WAIT 6 1:54 3.66% irq16: ciss0 28 root1 -32- 0K16K WAIT 8 16:01 0.00% swi4: clock sio Overall CPU utilization has significantly dropped, but I noticed that swi1 has taken CPU0 with high utilization when the net.isr.direct=0. What does this mean? SCENARIO B : Bombarded w/ more TCP traffic: Worst thing, the box has become unresponsive (can't be PINGed, inaccessible through SSH) after more traffic was added retaining net.isr.direct=0. This is due maybe to the 100% utilization on CPU0 for sw1:net (see below result, first line). bce's and swi's seem to race each other based on the result when net.isr.direct=1, swi1 . The rest of the CPUs are sitting pretty (100% Idle). Can you shed some lights on this? When net.isr.direct=0: 27 root1 -44- 0K16K CPU0 0 5:45 100.00% swi1: net 11 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU15 0 0:00 100.00% idle: cpu15 13 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU13 0 0:00 100.00% idle: cpu13 17 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU9 0 0:00 100.00% idle: cpu9 18 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU8 0 0:00 100.00% idle: cpu8 21 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU5 5 146:17 99.17% idle: cpu5 22 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU4 4 146:17 99.07% idle: cpu4 14 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU12 0 0:00 99.07% idle: cpu12 16 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU10 a 109:33 98.88% idle: cpu10 15 root1 171 ki31 0K16K CPU11 b 86:36 93.55% idle: cpu11 52 root1 -68- 0K16K WAIT b 59:42 13.87% irq32: bce1 When net.isr.direct=1, 52 root1 -68- 0K16K CPU11 b 55:04 97.66% irq32: bce1 51 root1 -68- 0K16K CPU10 a 33:52 73.88% irq31: bce0 16 root1 171 ki31 0K16K RUNa 102:42 26.86% idle: cpu10 15 root1 171 ki31 0K16K RUNb 81:20 3.17% idle: cpu11 28 root1 -32- 0K16K WAIT e 13:40 0.00% swi4: clock sio With regards to bandwidth in all scenarios above, the result is extremely low (expected is several hundred Mb/s). Why? - iface Rx TxTotal == bce0: 4.69 Mb/s 10.49 Mb/s 15.18 Mb/s bce1: 20.66 Mb/s4.68 Mb/s 25.34 Mb/s lo0: 0.00 b/s0.00 b/s0.00 b/s -- total: 25.35 Mb/s 15.17 Mb/s 40.52 Mb/s Thanks, Won ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
