Re: Crashes in libthr?

2016-03-13 Thread Larry Rosenman
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 09:51:23PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 07:03:53PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: > > On 2016-03-13 14:29, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 02:10:58PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: > > >> On 2016-03-13 13:58, Konstantin

Re: how to recycle Inact memory more aggressively?

2016-03-13 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 13 March 2016 at 18:51, Mark Johnston wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 06:33:46PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I can reproduce this by doing a mkimage on a large destination file >> image. it looks like it causes all the desktop processes to get paged >> out

Re: how to recycle Inact memory more aggressively?

2016-03-13 Thread Mark Johnston
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 06:33:46PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hi, > > I can reproduce this by doing a mkimage on a large destination file > image. it looks like it causes all the desktop processes to get paged > out whilst it's doing so, and then the whole UI freezes until it > catches up.

Re: how to recycle Inact memory more aggressively?

2016-03-13 Thread Adrian Chadd
Hi, I can reproduce this by doing a mkimage on a large destination file image. it looks like it causes all the desktop processes to get paged out whilst it's doing so, and then the whole UI freezes until it catches up. I'll poke alc and others to see if I can figure out how to trace what's going

Re: how to recycle Inact memory more aggressively?

2016-03-13 Thread Mark Johnston
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 09:38:35AM +0100, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > In the course of the last year or so the behavior of the vm system > has changed in regard to how aggressively Inact memory is recycled. > > My box has 8GB of memory. At the moment I'm copying 100s of gigabytes > from one file

CFT: powerpcspe arch port

2016-03-13 Thread Justin Hibbits
To anyone using the PowerPC e500v2 core, I have created a new architecture port, powerpc.powerpcspe, which supports the use of the Signal Processing Engine found in these SoCs. It does not support e500v1, which only has single-precision floating point capabilities. It can be found at

Re: Crashes in libthr?

2016-03-13 Thread Larry Rosenman
On 2016-03-13 14:29, Konstantin Belousov wrote: On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 02:10:58PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: On 2016-03-13 13:58, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 01:32:20PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: >> On 2016-03-13 13:12, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> > On Sun, Mar

Re: clang is mostlikely miscompling libm

2016-03-13 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 09:08:56PM +, Ed Maste wrote: > On 13 March 2016 at 19:16, Steve Kargl > wrote: > > JFYI, > > > > It appears that clang on up-to-date current may be > > miscompiling libm on at i686 class hardware. > > Do you have an example of the

Re: clang is mostlikely miscompling libm

2016-03-13 Thread Ed Maste
On 13 March 2016 at 19:16, Steve Kargl wrote: > JFYI, > > It appears that clang on up-to-date current may be > miscompiling libm on at i686 class hardware. Do you have an example of the suspected miscompilation? ___

Re: leaky M_RTABLE r295632

2016-03-13 Thread Bryan Drewery
On 2/22/2016 2:01 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote: > Running CURRENT r295632. > > # vmstat -m|grep routetbl > routetbl 103952 51995K - 155861 512,1024 > > This seems quite large for my dev build system. > Now on r296480: # vmstat -m|grep routetbl routetbl 8928 4484K -

Re: Crashes in libthr?

2016-03-13 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 02:10:58PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: > On 2016-03-13 13:58, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 01:32:20PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: > >> On 2016-03-13 13:12, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > >> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 11:16:20AM -0500, Larry Rosenman

Re: Crashes in libthr?

2016-03-13 Thread Larry Rosenman
On 2016-03-13 13:58, Konstantin Belousov wrote: On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 01:32:20PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: On 2016-03-13 13:12, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 11:16:20AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: >> I updated one of my servers, and WHILE DOING THE INSTALLWORLD, I

Re: Crashes in libthr?

2016-03-13 Thread Larry Rosenman
On 2016-03-13 13:12, Konstantin Belousov wrote: On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 11:16:20AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: I updated one of my servers, and WHILE DOING THE INSTALLWORLD, I get segfaults. ANY multithreaded program crashes. I reverted libthr, and it's fine. borg.lerctr.org / # gdb -c

Re: Crashes in libthr?

2016-03-13 Thread Larry Rosenman
On 2016-03-13 13:12, Konstantin Belousov wrote: On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 11:16:20AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: I updated one of my servers, and WHILE DOING THE INSTALLWORLD, I get segfaults. ANY multithreaded program crashes. I reverted libthr, and it's fine. borg.lerctr.org / # gdb -c

Re: Crashes in libthr?

2016-03-13 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 11:16:20AM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote: > I updated one of my servers, and WHILE DOING THE INSTALLWORLD, I get > segfaults. > > ANY multithreaded program crashes. > > I reverted libthr, and it's fine. > > borg.lerctr.org / # gdb -c zfs.core /sbin/zfs > GNU gdb 6.1.1

Re: how to recycle Inact memory more aggressively?

2016-03-13 Thread Fabian Keil
Gary Jennejohn wrote: > In the course of the last year or so the behavior of the vm system > has changed in regard to how aggressively Inact memory is recycled. > > My box has 8GB of memory. At the moment I'm copying 100s of gigabytes > from one file system to another

Crashes in libthr?

2016-03-13 Thread Larry Rosenman
I updated one of my servers, and WHILE DOING THE INSTALLWORLD, I get segfaults. ANY multithreaded program crashes. I reverted libthr, and it's fine. borg.lerctr.org / # gdb -c zfs.core /sbin/zfs GNU gdb 6.1.1 [FreeBSD] Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GDB is free software,

Re: how to recycle Inact memory more aggressively?

2016-03-13 Thread Adrian Chadd
Yeah, but his comment is that "i'm doing a large file copy operation; why is the system paging out binaries versus recycling other file cache memory?" I have a feeling this is more due to the last few years of VM work to improve file serving performance and it hasn't really been tested/evaluated

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

2016-03-13 Thread Nikolai Lifanov
On March 13, 2016 10:17:05 AM EDT, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: >Bryan Drewery wrote on 03/13/2016 06:00: >> On 3/11/16 9:01 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: >>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:

Re: how to recycle Inact memory more aggressively?

2016-03-13 Thread RW
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 09:38:35 +0100 Gary Jennejohn wrote: > In the course of the last year or so the behavior of the vm system > has changed in regard to how aggressively Inact memory is recycled. > > My box has 8GB of memory. At the moment I'm copying 100s of gigabytes > from one file system to

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

2016-03-13 Thread Miroslav Lachman
Bryan Drewery wrote on 03/13/2016 06:00: On 3/11/16 9:01 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote: On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14,

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

2016-03-13 Thread Daniel Eischen
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Bryan Drewery wrote: On 3/11/16 9:01 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote: On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05:11PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote: On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14,