On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Glen Barber g...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 07:23:49AM -0700, Sean Bruno wrote:
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 10:12 -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
Two machines in the cluster panic last night with the same backtrace.
It is unclear yet exactly what was
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Xin Li delp...@delphij.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
It looks like there is a regression (or a regression that gets exposed
by some new feature) that is related to time-keeping or timecounter,
although I'm not yet familiar
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:55 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:25:06 am Alexander Yerenkow wrote:
Hello all.
I have panics in vmware with installed vmwaretools (they are guessed
culprit).
Seems that memory balooning (or using more memory in all vms than
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Alexander Yerenkow yeren...@gmail.com wrote:
That was their official tools, which are came from ISO which mounted with
command install/upgrade client tools.
There is not much I can do then, unless they update their source-code.
Or do you have any pointer?
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Florian Smeets f...@smeets.im wrote:
On 06/25/2013 22:45, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Long story short is that I've run into an issue on several VM
images and real machines where UFS on mpt fails to reboot because it
hangs in the kernel. I don't have any
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Ryan Stone ryst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Ian Lepore i...@freebsd.org wrote:
ticks is defined as a signed integer but conceptually it is unsigned --
it increments from 0 to UINT_MAX (not INT_MAX) then rolls over. If
td-td_blktick is
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Ryan Stone ryst...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently deadlkres performs the following comparison when trying to check
for threads that have been blocked on a mutex or sleeping on an sx lock:
if (TD_ON_LOCK(td) ticks td-td_blktick) {
/* check for deadlock...*/
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Marcelo/Porks marceloro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 22, 2013 1:02 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Marcelo/Porks marceloro...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi, I'm facing an error compiling the sysutils/fusefs-kmod.
I'm using
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Marcelo/Porks marceloro...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I'm facing an error compiling the sysutils/fusefs-kmod.
I'm using the CURRENT from today (2013-03-21).
Can someone using the CURRENT confirm if this also happens in your system?
CURRENT should not allow you to
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rick Macklem rmack...@uoguelph.ca wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:11:59PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:38:21PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Adrian Chadd wrote:
.. what
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
on 16/11/2012 16:42 Andriy Gapon said the following:
on 15/11/2012 23:44 Attilio Rao said the following:
Do you think you can test this patch?:
http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/lockmgr_forcerec.patch
I will use this patch
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Andre Oppermann an...@freebsd.org wrote:
FreeBSD bbb.ccc 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #0:
Fri Nov 23 17:00:40 CET 2012
a...@bbb.ccc:/usr/obj/usr/src/head/sys/GENERIC amd64
#0 doadump (textdump=-2014022336) at pcpu.h:229
#1 0x8033e2d2 in
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Ryan Stone ryst...@gmail.com wrote:
Today I saw a spurious witness warning for acquiring duplicate lock of
same type. The root cause is that when running mtx_destroy on a spinlock
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Ryan Stone ryst...@gmail.com wrote:
Today I saw a spurious witness warning for acquiring duplicate lock of
same type. The root cause is that when running mtx_destroy on a spinlock
that is held by the current thread, mtx_destroy calls spinlock_exit()
before
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Ryan Stone ryst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
I seriously wonder why right now we don't assume the lock is unheld.
There are likely historically reasons for that, but I would like to
know which
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Ryan Stone ryst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
I seriously wonder why right now we don't assume the lock is unheld
On 11/15/12, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
To people knowing the code,
do the following documentation changes look correct?
The latter chunk is not correct.
It will panic only if assertions are on. I was thinking that however
it would be good idea to patch lockmgr to panic also in
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
on 15/11/2012 20:46 Attilio Rao said the following:
On 11/15/12, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
To people knowing the code,
do the following documentation changes look correct?
The latter chunk is not correct
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:50 PM, C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws wrote:
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
Following the plan reported here:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
We are now at the state where all non-MPSAFE filesystems
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Raoul rm...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
Trying to mount a partition from type ntfs
with the following conditions i get:
R241700, with fusefs-libs in sync.
kldload fuse
fuse loaded
mount -t ntfs /dev/daXsX
not supported!
mount_ntfs /dev/daXsX
On 10/21/12, Raoul MEGELAS rm...@free.fr wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:04:46 +0100
Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi Attilio,
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Raoul rm...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
Trying to mount a partition from type ntfs
with the following conditions i get:
R241700
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Raoul MEGELAS rm...@free.fr wrote:
sorry for posting 2 times the same message!
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:07:36 +0100
Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10/21/12, Raoul MEGELAS rm...@free.fr wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:04:46 +0100
Attilio Rao atti
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Raoul MEGELAS rm...@free.fr wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:58:00 +0100
Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Raoul MEGELAS rm...@free.fr wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:07:36 +0100
Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 10
Following the plan reported here:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
We are now at the state where all non-MPSAFE filesystems are
disconnected by the three.
At this point we can proceed with the import of a revised kib's patch
as reported in that page. This will mean effectively remove
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM, AN a...@neu.net wrote:
FreeBSD FBSD10 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #26 r241612: Tue Oct 16
13:03:26 EDT 2012 root@FBSD10:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL amd64
I loaded the module with kldload fuse.ko
# kldstat
Id Refs AddressSize
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2012/7/4 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2012/6/29 Attilio Rao atti
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Kevin Oberman kob6...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer
h.schmalzba...@omnilan.de wrote:
schrieb Attilio Rao am 28.09.2012 16:18 (localtime):
On Wed
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Kevin Oberman kob6...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer
h.schmalzba...@omnilan.de wrote:
schrieb Attilio Rao am 28.09.2012 16:18 (localtime):
On Wed
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer
h.schmalzba...@omnilan.de wrote:
schrieb Attilio Rao am 28.09.2012 16:18 (localtime):
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer
h.schmalzba...@omnilan.de wrote:
...
After many people willing to test fuse on STABLE_9, I made
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer
h.schmalzba...@omnilan.de wrote:
schrieb Harald Schmalzbauer am 25.09.2012 20:24 (localtime):
schrieb Attilio Rao am 21.09.2012 02:22 (localtime):
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
[ trimm ]
You can use the branch directly or this patch against -CURRENT at 240752:
http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/fuse_import/fuse_240752.patch
In order to test this work, then, you just need to patch (or use
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2012/7/4 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2012/6/29 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
As already published several times, according to the following
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Kevin Oberman kob6...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2012/7/4 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2012/6/29 Attilio Rao atti
On 9/19/12, Kevin Oberman kob6...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Kevin Oberman kob6...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2012/7/4 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2012/6/29 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
As already published several times, according to the following plan:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
I still haven't
On 9/11/12, Brooks Davis bro...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 01:45:18PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:12:07PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote:
For the past several years we've been working towards migrating from
GCC to Clang/LLVM as our default
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
We currently dont compile 4680 ports (out of 23857).
On 8/23/12, Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it wrote:
Hi,
I am a bit unclear on what are the pros and cons of using
TUNABLE_INT vs TUNABLE_INT_FETCH within a device driver.
TUNABLE_INT is basically the statically initializer version of
TUNABLE_INT_FETCH.
In short terms, you will use
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 03:52:56PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
On 8/23/12, Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it wrote:
Hi,
I am a bit unclear on what are the pros and cons of using
TUNABLE_INT vs TUNABLE_INT_FETCH within
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
You don't want to work cooperatively.
Why is it that mbuf's refactoring consultation is being held in
internal, private, committers
On 8/1/12, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org
wrote:
You don't
On 8/1/12, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
[ trimm ]
You are forgetting one specific detail: you can always review a work
*after* it entered the tree. This is something you would never do, but
sometimes
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
On Jul 31, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
[...] We lack
On 7/21/12, Antony Mawer li...@mawer.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2012/7/18, Gustau Pérez i Querol gpe...@entel.upc.edu:
Sorry fo the delay.
About the ntfs support, I'd go with fuse and leave the most relevant
filesystems
2012/7/18, Gustau Pérez i Querol gpe...@entel.upc.edu:
Sorry fo the delay.
About the ntfs support, I'd go with fuse and leave the most relevant
filesystems in kernel space. In fact filesystems not particulary
specific and not tied our kernel would go to userspace; thinks like
smbfs,
2012/7/4 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2012/6/29 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
As already published several times, according to the following plan:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
I still haven't heard from Vivien or Edward, anyway as NTFS is
basically only used RO
2012/6/29 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
As already published several times, according to the following plan:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
I still haven't heard from Vivien or Edward, anyway as NTFS is
basically only used RO these days (also the mount_ntfs code just
permits
2012/7/2, Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 03:52:05PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
anything by SoC involved people about NTFS and certainly I don't see a
plan to get XFS locked.
Stupid question, but what amount of locking does XFS in FreeBSD still
need? I'm one
2012/7/2, Russell Cattelan catte...@thebarn.com:
On 7/2/12 1:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 03:52:05PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
anything by SoC involved people about NTFS and certainly I don't see a
plan to get XFS locked.
Stupid question, but what amount of locking
2012/7/1 C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
As already published several times, according to the following plan:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
in 2 months the code dealing with non-MPSAFE filesystem
As already published several times, according to the following plan:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
in 2 months the code dealing with non-MPSAFE filesystem will be
removed and filesystems not yet MPSAFE will be disconnected from the
tree. Their code will be however available in our
2012/6/13, Svatopluk Kraus onw...@gmail.com:
Hi,
it looks similar to
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2011-March/023829.html
Yes, that is likely the problem.
However, I would really love to workaround the pid allocation race in
another way than PRS_NEW because this imposes
2012/5/17, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org:
on 25/01/2012 23:52 Andriy Gapon said the following:
on 24/01/2012 14:32 Gleb Smirnoff said the following:
Yes, now:
Rebooting...
lock order reversal:
1st 0x80937140 smp rendezvous (smp rendezvous) @
2012/5/16, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org:
I would like to commit something like the following patch.
I think that in-kernel watchdog patting during crash dump is useful with
hardware watchdogs too. The code seems to work fine here.
In fact, I am not sure why wdog_kern_pat was originally tied
2012/5/16, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org:
on 16/05/2012 15:37 Attilio Rao said the following:
2012/5/16, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org:
I would like to commit something like the following patch.
I think that in-kernel watchdog patting during crash dump is useful with
hardware watchdogs too
2012/5/3, Steven Atreju snatr...@googlemail.com:
K. Macy wrote [2012-05-03 02:58+0200]:
It's highly chipset and processor dependent what works best.
Yes, of course.
Though i was kinda, even shocked, once i've seen this first:
http://marc.info/?l=dragonfly-commitsm=132241713812022w=2
So
Il 20 aprile 2012 19:18, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I will be bringing up an old thread there, but it would seem the
situation did not evolve in the past 9 years. I have a machine running
Please read NOTES.
Attilio
Il 13 aprile 2012 14:37, Aleksandr Rybalko r...@dlink.ua ha scritto:
Hi,
When kernel build with option KTR_CPUMASK, build failed with following
error:
cc -c -O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -std=c99 -Wall -Wredundant-decls
-Wnested-externs -Wstrict-prototypes
Il 05 aprile 2012 19:12, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hi,
[Sorry for the delay, I got a bit sidetrack'ed...]
2012/2/17 Alexander Motin m...@freebsd.org:
On 17.02.2012 18:53, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org wrote:
Il 06 aprile 2012 15:27, Alexander Motin m...@freebsd.org ha scritto:
On 04/06/12 17:13, Attilio Rao wrote:
Il 05 aprile 2012 19:12, Arnaud Lacombelacom...@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hi,
[Sorry for the delay, I got a bit sidetrack'ed...]
2012/2/17 Alexander Motinm...@freebsd.org
Il 05 aprile 2012 19:03, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hi folks,
Over the past months, I ran on a couple of unused box the
`hackbench'[HACKBENCH] benchmark used by the Linux folks for tracking
down various kind of regression/improvement. `hackbench' is a
scheduler + IPC test
Il 06 aprile 2012 18:54, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
Il 05 aprile 2012 19:03, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hi folks,
Over the past months, I ran on a couple of unused box
2012/3/6, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
Author: attilio
Date: Tue Mar 6 20:01:25 2012
New Revision: 232619
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/232619
Log:
Disable the option VFS_ALLOW_NONMPSAFE by default on all the supported
platforms.
This will make every attempt
Il 25 febbraio 2012 07:15, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org ha scritto:
On 02/24/2012 21:00, Doug Barton wrote:
I'm on today's -current (r232126) and I'm getting the error in the
subject when trying to start postfix. I recompiled 2.9, and then tried
2.8 both give the same error.
Did you
2012/1/19 John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org:
On Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:02:57 am Glen Barber wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:50:45AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:01:37 pm Glen Barber wrote:
Hi,
I'm running -CURRENT from about 5 days ago:
2011/11/8 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/8 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
Author: attilio
Date: Tue Nov 8 10:18:07 2011
New Revision: 227333
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/227333
Log:
Introduce the option VFS_ALLOW_NONMPSAFE and turn it on by default on
all
2011/12/20 John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org:
On Saturday, December 17, 2011 10:41:15 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Alexander Kabaev kab...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:09:00 +0100
O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
Sleeping thread (tid
2011/12/20 John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:20:09 am Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/12/20 John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org:
On Saturday, December 17, 2011 10:41:15 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Alexander Kabaev kab...@gmail.com
wrote
2011/12/16 Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=MTAyNzA
it might be worth highlighting that despite
2011/12/14 Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net:
On 12/13/2011 7:01 PM, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
Has anyone experiencing problems tried to set sysctl
kern.sched.steal_thresh=1 ?
I don't remember what our specific problem at $WORK was, perhaps it
was just interrupt threads not getting serviced fast
2011/12/13 Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
Do
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net:
On 12/15/2011 11:26 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
Hi Mike,
was that just the same codebase with the switch SCHED_4BSD/SCHED_ULE?
Hi Attilio,
It was the same codebase.
Could you retry the bench checking CPU usage and possible thread
migration
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net:
On 12/15/2011 11:42 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
I'm thinking now to a better test-case for this: can you try that on a
tmpfs volume?
There is enough RAM in the box so that it should not touch the disk, and
I was sending the output to /dev/null, so
2011/12/15 Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:26:27PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/12/13 Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net:
On 12/15/2011 11:56 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
So, as very first thing, can you try the following:
- Same codebase, etc. etc.
- Make the test 4 times, discard the first and ministat for the other 3
- Reboot
- Change the steal_thresh value
- Make the test
2011/12/7 Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org:
on 07/12/2011 00:11 Attilio Rao said the following:
I'd just change this check on panicstr:
@@ -606,9 +603,13 @@ kdb_trap(int type, int code, struct trapframe *tf)
intr = intr_disable();
#ifdef SMP
- other_cpus = all_cpus;
- CPU_CLR
2011/12/2 Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org:
on 02/12/2011 20:40 John Baldwin said the following:
On 12/2/11 12:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/12/2 John Baldwinj...@freebsd.org:
On 12/2/11 5:05 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Baldwin said the following:
Ah, ok (I had thought
2011/12/4 Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org:
on 21/11/2011 18:58 Attilio Rao said the following:
I would be very in favor about having a 'thread trampoline for KDB',
thus that it can use locks.
I keep hearing the suggestion to add this trampoline, but I admit that I do
not
understand its
2011/12/4 Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org:
on 02/12/2011 19:18 Attilio Rao said the following:
BTW, I'm waiting for the details to settle (including the patch we
have been discussing internally about binding to CPU0 during ACPI
shutdown)
I do not see strong interdependency between that patch
2011/11/13 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
I was tricked into finishing the work by Andrey Gapon, who developed
the patch to reliably stop other processors on panic. The patch
greatly improves the chances of getting dump on panic on SMP host.
Several people already saw the patchset, and
2011/12/6 Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org:
on 06/12/2011 20:34 Attilio Rao said the following:
[snip]
- I'm not entirely sure, why we want to disable interrupts at this
moment (before to stop other CPUs)?:
Because I believe that stop_cpus_hard() should run in a context with
interrupts
2011/12/2 John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org:
On 12/2/11 5:05 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Baldwin said the following:
Ah, ok (I had thought SCHEDULER_STOPPED was going to always be true when
kdb was
active). But I think these two changes should cover critical_exit() ok.
2011/12/2 John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org:
On 12/2/11 12:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/12/2 John Baldwinj...@freebsd.org:
On 12/2/11 5:05 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Baldwin said the following:
Ah, ok (I had thought SCHEDULER_STOPPED was going to always be true
when
2011/11/21 John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org:
On Friday, November 18, 2011 4:59:32 pm Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 17/11/2011 23:38 John Baldwin said the following:
On Thursday, November 17, 2011 4:35:07 pm John Baldwin wrote:
Hmmm, you could also make critical_exit() not perform deferred preemptions
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
Please consider:
http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/mutexfileline2.patch
This is now committed as r227758,227759, you can update your patch
It looks good to me.
Attilio
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 07:02:14PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
+#define vm_page_lock_assert(m, a) \
+ vm_page_lock_assert_KBI((m), (a), LOCK_FILE
2011/11/20 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans up vm_map.c:
http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/sxfileline.patch
What do you think about it?
This one only changes
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:22:38PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans up
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
suffix
2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org:
2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov
2011/11/17 Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org:
on 17/11/2011 21:09 John Baldwin said the following:
On Thursday, November 17, 2011 11:58:03 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 17/11/2011 18:37 John Baldwin said the following:
On Thursday, November 17, 2011 4:47:42 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 17/11/2011 10:34
2011/11/17 m...@freebsd.org:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2011/11/17 Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org:
BTW, it is my opinion that we really should not let the debugger code call
mi_switch for any reason.
Yes, I agree with this, this is why
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
suffix to func. Perhaps, kbi or KBI. In other words, something
that hints at the function's reason for existing.
2011/11/15 m...@freebsd.org:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
suffix to func
2011/11/13 Davide Italiano davide.itali...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Davide Italiano
davide.itali...@gmail.com wrote:
Good evening folks.
During last days I've written a patch to add sandy bridge support to
hwpmc. Until now, the most recent Intel processor microarchitecture
2011/11/13 Davide Italiano davide.itali...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2011/11/13 Davide Italiano davide.itali...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Davide Italiano
davide.itali...@gmail.com wrote:
Good evening folks.
During
2011/11/13 Davide Italiano davide.itali...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Davide Italiano
davide.itali...@gmail.com wrote:
Good evening folks.
During last days I've written a patch to add sandy bridge support to
hwpmc. Until now, the most recent Intel processor microarchitecture
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
