:In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Matthew D. Fuller" writes:
:: The question at task is, is buildworld one of them? I don't think that
:: situation comes up a lot in buildworld, but I'm not exactly an authority
:: on it...
:
:About 6 months ago, softupdates made things about 5% faster than async
::At 10:04 PM -0800 2000/3/29, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:[...]
:6 minutes 20 seconds (about 7%).
:
:I'm seeing the same order of improvement still.
:
:--
:Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]fax (0118) 989 4254 between 0800 and 1800 UK
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matthew Dillon writes:
: Async should not be used unless you really like restoring crashed
: filesystems from tape :-). Oh, and perhaps when one is doing an
: initial OS install from CDRom :-). Async itself will not cause a crash,
: but if your
For the single-process (1-fork) case, syscall overhead improved
moderately from 1.6 uS in 4.0 to 1.3 uS in 5.0. I think the marked
improvement in the competing-cpu's case is due to the movement of the
MP lock inward somewhat (even for syscalls that aren't MP safe),
the
:
:You should be able to remove the splhigh() from sigprocmask and run it
:MPSAFE. At least, I can't find a reason not to (and it works here, yes).
:
:\\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith
:
Tentitively it looks like we will indeed be able to make sigprocmask()
For the single-process (1-fork) case, syscall overhead improved
moderately from 1.6 uS in 4.0 to 1.3 uS in 5.0. I think the marked
improvement in the competing-cpu's case is due to the movement of the
MP lock inward somewhat (even for syscalls that aren't MP safe),
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote:
time make -j 20 buildworldbuild FreeBSD-current using 4.0 kernel
4745.607u 1673.646s 1:29:07.45 120.0% 1323+1599k 8237+251565io 1615pf+0w
time make -j 20 buildworldbuild FreeBSD-current using 5.0 kernel
4696.987u 1502.278s
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote:
time make -j 20 buildworldbuild FreeBSD-current using 4.0 kernel
4745.607u 1673.646s 1:29:07.45 120.0% 1323+1599k 8237+251565io 1615pf+0w
time make -j 20 buildworldbuild FreeBSD-current using 5.0 kernel
4696.987u 1502.278s
: time make -j 20 buildworld build FreeBSD-current using 4.0 kernel
:
: 4745.607u 1673.646s 1:29:07.45 120.0% 1323+1599k 8237+251565io 1615pf+0w
:
: time make -j 20 buildworld build FreeBSD-current using 5.0 kernel
:
: 4696.987u 1502.278s 1:10:34.17 146.4% 1359+1641k
: 4696.987u 1502.278s 1:10:34.17 146.4% 1359+1641k 10889+4270io 1779pf+0w
:
:Can I ask why is there a huge difference in the number of io (251k vs 4k)?
:What is so different between 4.0 and 5.0 that causes this?
:
:--
:
:Andy Farkas
Ha! I found it. Kirk gets the credit ---
Matthew Dillon wrote:
: time make -j 20 buildworld build FreeBSD-current using 4.0 kernel
:
: 4745.607u 1673.646s 1:29:07.45 120.0% 1323+1599k 8237+251565io 1615p
f+0w
:
: time make -j 20 buildworld build FreeBSD-current using 5.0 kernel
:
: 4696.987u 1502.278s
:. astpending is now undefined (/usr/src/sys/kern/kern_sig.c:1168)
:
:. some calls to get_mplock and rel_mplock are made without #define SMP
: conditionnal compile in following modules:
:
: kern_exec
: kern_exit
: kern_sig
: kern_sync
: mfs_vfsops
: mem
: trap
Hoya!... ok, I'll
:Hi,
:
:Appears to boot OK, but then won't answer to network or console, not even
:CtlAltEsc to DDB. Screen saver kicks in OK though.
:
:--
:Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]fax (0118) 989 4254 between 0800 and 1800 UK
Make sure
:. astpending is now undefined (/usr/src/sys/kern/kern_sig.c:1168)
:
:. some calls to get_mplock and rel_mplock are made without #define SMP
: conditionnal compile in following modules:
:
: kern_exec
: kern_exit
: kern_sig
: kern_sync
: mfs_vfsops
: mem
: trap
Ok, should be fixed
At 09:52 -0800 28/3/00, Matthew Dillon wrote:
Make sure you haven't confused it between the patch set and the
commit I made last night. Do a cvs update and then a cvs diff to
make sure things haven't gotten confused.
Just blew /sys away and checked it out afresh. Same result I'm
:At 09:52 -0800 28/3/00, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Make sure you haven't confused it between the patch set and the
:commit I made last night. Do a cvs update and then a cvs diff to
:make sure things haven't gotten confused.
:
:Just blew /sys away and checked it out afresh. Same result
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote:
Patch 04 is ready.
http://www.backplane.com/FreeBSD4/
http://www.backplane.com/FreeBSD4/smp-patch-04.diff
Contains lots of cleanup of stale SMP code. There are still a few places
where get_mplock is being called with
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2000-Mar-10 12:06:18 +1100, Mikhail Teterin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will the -current version of FreeBSD run on a multi-CPU axp machine and
use all of the CPUs?
Not yet, but Real Soon Now.
Would that be a reliable box (assuming the admin
On 2000-Mar-10 12:06:18 +1100, Mikhail Teterin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will the -current version of FreeBSD run on a multi-CPU axp machine and
use all of the CPUs?
Not yet, but Real Soon Now.
Would that be a reliable box (assuming the admin
sometimes knows what he is doing)?
-current
On 24-Jan-2000 Forrest Aldrich wrote:
| I have a Dell PowerEdge 1300 with dual Pentium II / 400mhz processors
| installed. However, upon installing today's snapshot of 4.0, the dmesg
| output doesn't seem to detect the second processor. I wonder if there
| is a problem here, or if I
Forrest Aldrich wrote:
I have a Dell PowerEdge 1300 with dual Pentium II / 400mhz processors
installed. However, upon installing today's snapshot of 4.0, the dmesg
output doesn't seem to detect the second processor. I wonder if there
is a problem here, or if I might have a hardware issue.
hello,
You may want to upgrade to a more recent source tree :
I've cvsupped from a 4.0-19991229-CURRENT snapshot to the sources around
01/05 21h00 GMT and SMP works fine on my machine (I have seen strange
things with the snapshot : cvs did not want to check out the source tree
! not a pleasant
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Mohit Aron wrote:
Hi,
I'm using FreeBSD-current (snapshot from Jan 3rd) which is configured
with both SMP and APIC_IO support. This version panics upon calling
acquire_timer0() (to modify the interrupt frequency of the 8254). On the other
hand, if the kernel is not
On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 12:50:24PM +, George Cox wrote:
Right. Get yourself cvsup-bin-16.0 from a FreeBSD ftp site (it's in the
cvsup directory). Install that and read the manpages, just to get a
flavour of how it works.
Next, look at the files in /usr/share/examples/cvsup --
Emre wrote:
Hi people,
I went to
ftp://current.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/i386/4.0-19991218-CURRENT/README.TXT
and read that document.
Most hardware that I need to use is supported on that list, but I have a question:
is SMP enabled in the GENERIC kernel in FreeBSD
Just a followup question on my question from a week ago or so ther was
indeed a stack overflow I'd guess- I check the code path more carefully
and there was a 2KB stack buffer there (oof)- and removing it seemed to
make the problem go awaySo the question here is "Shouldn't this have
"David E. Cross" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a threaded appilcation that is only running on one processor.
I remember there was discussion about this in the past, and there was a
solution, I think it involved a patch.
Any pointers?
http://lt.tar.com
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch[EMAIL
|"David E. Cross" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|I have a threaded appilcation that is only running on one processor.
|I remember there was discussion about this in the past, and there was a
|solution, I think it involved a patch.
|
|Any pointers?
|
|http://lt.tar.com
And don't be turned off by
I run a -STABLE system on a S1836DLUAN, it seems to do just fine.
If you need more info contact me.
-Ira
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
On Thu, Jun 03, 1999 at 08:37:56AM -0500, Jim Bryant jbry...@unix.tfs.net
wrote:
are there any known problems with the Tyan Thunder2 [1696DLUA] and
Thunder100 [1836DLUA] motherboards?
The Thunder100 DLUAN I have works very well with two PII-400 and
-current FreeBSD. For Thunder2 don't
Hi,
Has anyone tried having APM and SMP in the same kernel? It panic()'s mine :)
Basically the machine panics a few seconds after I do 'apmconf -e'. apm seems
to return normal values though.
I've attached a sample output from APM, dmesg and my kernel config.
I get a trap 12: page fault
On 05-May-99 Luoqi Chen wrote:
Also, nm kernel.debug | sort shows that 0xc0208a4c is in Xbpt
Are you sure it's in Xbpt? Xbpt has only 6 lines of code and none of them is
likely to generate a page fault. What's the address of symbol Xbpt?
Yeah, well, it didn't look likely to me either but..
Yeah, well, it didn't look likely to me either but.. :-/
Here is part of nm kernel.debug | sort
...
c0208a30 T Xnmi
c0208a3c T Xbpt
c0208a50 T Xofl
...
Did you actually boot from kernel.debug? If not, use the kernel you booted
from, the symbols should still be there.
I'll give it
Hi,
Has anyone tried having APM and SMP in the same kernel? It panic()'s mine :)
Basically the machine panics a few seconds after I do 'apmconf -e'. apm seems
to return normal values though.
I've attached a sample output from APM, dmesg and my kernel config.
I get a trap 12: page fault
On 05-May-99 Luoqi Chen wrote:
Also, nm kernel.debug | sort shows that 0xc0208a4c is in Xbpt
Are you sure it's in Xbpt? Xbpt has only 6 lines of code and none of them
is
likely to generate a page fault. What's the address of symbol Xbpt?
Yeah, well, it didn't look likely to me
On 05-May-99 Luoqi Chen wrote:
My SMP vm sharing commit broke APM. Please try out this patch,
That patch seems to have fixed it! Great stuff :)
---
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au
The nice thing about standards is that there
are so
I haven't been able to get a working SMP kernel out of -CURRENT recently.
I don't know exactly when it broke, because I usually rebuild on a weekly
basis. The kernel hangs after:
APIC_IO: Testing 8254 interrupt delivery
and doesn't ever come back (panic or otherwise).
The one thing that I
That fixes it, thanks.
At 04:13 4/13/99 +0200, tor.e...@fast.no wrote:
I haven't been able to get a working SMP kernel out of -CURRENT recently.
I don't know exactly when it broke, because I usually rebuild on a weekly
basis. The kernel hangs after:
APIC_IO: Testing 8254 interrupt delivery
John S. Dyson dy...@iquest.net writes:
I just wanted to chime in and say that the new patches are based
on a really good concept, and is much cleaner than the previous
method. Also, many RISC architectures can utilize this
method due to the availability of lots of general registers.
(One
per-processor registers that one could use (but loading a
general register with that per processor register would be
needed for access.) Also, since the PPC has lots of registers,
one could? permanently reserve one of the general registers (r13?).
I really don't like the idea of
On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:(and what would be the equivalent ALPHA patch?)
:I can imagine the original PDE trick working on the alpha but
:they don't have a spare register sitting around..
do they?
:
:julian
I'd like to see this too. I will soon have two SMP boxes
: :julian
:
:I'd like to see this too. I will soon have two SMP boxes of my own to
play
:with for my own personal use and for an upcoming project, and at least one
:will be available for SMP life-testing purposes for several months.
:I really want to see two things: (1)
:On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
:
: Now, if you're not using Luoqi's patches to enable multithreaded
: address spaces, you can stop reading here. If you are, you'll
: need to patch i386/i386/swtch.s as follows:
:
:My suggestion is that we apply Luoqi's %fs patch to -current rather than
Alan Cox said:
I've committed the basic infrastructure to improve TLB management
on SMPs. Translation: this will lead to the elimination of a LOT
of interprocessor interrupts to invalidate TLB entries. I'll be
turning on the new mechanisms slowly so we can carefully debug
each step and
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, John S. Dyson wrote:
Alan Cox said:
I've committed the basic infrastructure to improve TLB management
on SMPs. Translation: this will lead to the elimination of a LOT
of interprocessor interrupts to invalidate TLB entries. I'll be
turning on the new mechanisms
On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
Now, if you're not using Luoqi's patches to enable multithreaded
address spaces, you can stop reading here. If you are, you'll
need to patch i386/i386/swtch.s as follows:
My suggestion is that we apply Luoqi's %fs patch to -current rather than
have to
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 08:39:17PM +0100, Thomas Schuerger wrote:
Hi!
Will an SMP Kernel of 4.0-Current for two processors also run on
one processor? I'd like to check whether the SMP-kernel runs stable
on my Asus P2B-DS with two processors, but I'd like to be able to
switch back to the
On 16-Mar-99 Andreas Klemm wrote:
No AFAIK two CPU's has to be there, so that the SMP kernel boots
successfully.
Yes this is true. You have to make a UP kernel (ie remove the SMP lines)..
I have 2 kernels on my SMP box, they are the same except one has SMP in it :)
---
Daniel O'Connor
On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 06:13:43PM -0700, Russell L. Carter wrote:
John Dyson extemporised:
%Julian Elischer said:
%
%
% On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Luoqi Chen wrote:
% You may try my patch at http://www.freebsd.org/~luoqi, which would allow
% linux threads to run on SMP.
%
% I've gone
On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 01:46:49PM -0500, John Capo wrote:
Is this valid for 3.1 or just -current?
Yes. The same bug exists in 3.1.
Alan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
John Dyson extemporised:
%Julian Elischer said:
%
%
% On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Luoqi Chen wrote:
% You may try my patch at http://www.freebsd.org/~luoqi, which would allow
% linux threads to run on SMP.
%
% I've gone through these patches and I can see that they are really needed
% for SMP
You may try my patch at http://www.freebsd.org/~luoqi, which would allow
linux threads to run on SMP.
I've gone through these patches and I can see that they are really needed
for SMP where address spaces are shared.
I agree -- a per-cpu page directory per multithreaded process is
I've gone through these patches and I can see that they are really needed
for SMP where address spaces are shared.
There are details I didn't get, such as where is the per-processor
pde pointed, (i.e. where is the per processor KVM range) and is there a
single page table for each processor
Julian Elischer said:
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Luoqi Chen wrote:
You may try my patch at http://www.freebsd.org/~luoqi, which would allow
linux threads to run on SMP.
I've gone through these patches and I can see that they are really needed
for SMP where address spaces are shared.
I
Hi,
I downloaded Star Office 5 and only THEN realised that the code for doing
linux thread
emulation is #ifndef SMP :) Still, after downloading 70 meg over a 56k modem
and paying
19c/meg I was gonna try the sucker regardless.. And well, it works!
The install hung at the end, after its
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Luoqi Chen wrote:
Hi,
I downloaded Star Office 5 and only THEN realised that the code for doing
linux thread
emulation is #ifndef SMP :) Still, after downloading 70 meg over a 56k
modem and paying
19c/meg I was gonna try the sucker regardless.. And well, it
I'm not sure why you need a different page directory for each processor.
what's your thinking on this?
You might add some comments in your patches so that if becomes more
obvious what you are doing...
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Luoqi Chen wrote:
You may try my patch at http://www.freebsd.org/~luoqi, which would allow
linux threads to run on SMP.
I've gone through these patches and I can see that they are really needed
for SMP where address spaces are shared.
There are details I didn't get, such
201 - 258 of 258 matches
Mail list logo
