Re: process killed: text file modification

Julian Elischer wrote: On 13/4/17 5:45 am, Rick Macklem wrote: > I have just committed a patch to head (r316745) which should fix this. > (It includes code to handle the recent change to head to make the pageouts > write through the buffer cache.) > > It will be MFC'd and should be in 11.1. >

Re: process killed: text file modification

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:56:43AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 13/4/17 5:45 am, Rick Macklem wrote: > > I have just committed a patch to head (r316745) which should fix this. > > (It includes code to handle the recent change to head to make the pageouts > > write through the buffer

Re: process killed: text file modification

tin Belousov Cc: Gergely Czuczy; Dimitry Andric; Ian Lepore; FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: process killed: text file modification I can't do commits until I get home in mid-April. That's why it will be waiting until then. It should make it into stable/11 in plenty of time for 11.1. Thanks f

Re: process killed: text file modification

d.org <owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org> on behalf of Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 3:01:41 AM To: Rick Macklem Cc: Gergely Czuczy; Dimitry Andric; Ian Lepore; FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: process killed: text file modification On Thu, Mar 23,

Re: process killed: text file modification

urr...@freebsd.org> on behalf of Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 3:01:41 AM To: Rick Macklem Cc: Gergely Czuczy; Dimitry Andric; Ian Lepore; FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: process killed: text file modification On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 09:39:00PM +,

Re: process killed: text file modification

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 09:39:00PM +, Rick Macklem wrote: > Try whatever you like. However, if the case that failed before doesn't fail > now, > I'd call the test a success. > > Thanks, rick > ps: It looks like Kostik is going to work on converting the NFS > vop_putpages() to > using

Re: process killed: text file modification

ct: Re: process killed: text file modification On 2017. 03. 21. 3:40, Rick Macklem wrote: > Gergely Czuczy wrote: > [stuff snipped] >> Actually I want to test it, but you guys are so vehemently discussing >> it, I thought it would be better to do so, once you guys settled your >&

Re: process killed: text file modification

On 2017. 03. 21. 3:40, Rick Macklem wrote: Gergely Czuczy wrote: [stuff snipped] Actually I want to test it, but you guys are so vehemently discussing it, I thought it would be better to do so, once you guys settled your analysis on the code. Also, me not having the problem occurring, I don't

Re: process killed: text file modification

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:55:09AM +, Rick Macklem wrote: > Wow, this is looking good to me. I had thought that the simple way to make > ncl_putpages() go through the buffer cache was to replace ncl_writerpc() with > VOP_WRITE(). My concern was all the memory<->memory copying that would > go

Re: process killed: text file modification

On 2017. 03. 21. 3:40, Rick Macklem wrote: Gergely Czuczy wrote: [stuff snipped] Actually I want to test it, but you guys are so vehemently discussing it, I thought it would be better to do so, once you guys settled your analysis on the code. Also, me not having the problem occurring, I don't

Re: process killed: text file modification

Konstantin Belousov wrote: [stuff snipped] > Below is something to discuss. This is not finished, but it worked for > the simple tests I performed. Clustering should be somewhat handled by > the ncl_write() as is. As an additional advantage, I removed the now > unneeded phys buffer allocation. > >

Re: process killed: text file modification

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 09:41:19PM +, Rick Macklem wrote: > Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > Anyway, my position is that nfs VOP_PUTPAGES() should do write through > > buffer cache, not issuing the direct rpc call with the pages as source. > Hmm. Interesting idea. Since a "struct buf" can only

Re: process killed: text file modification

Konstantin Belousov wrote: [stuff snipped] > By 'impossible' I mean some arbitrary combination of bytes which were > written by many means to the file at arbitrary moments. In other words, > the file content, or even a single page/block content is not atomic > WRT the client updates. Yes. For

Re: process killed: text file modification

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:30:38AM +, Rick Macklem wrote: > Konstantin Belousov wrote: > [stuff snipped] > > Yes, I have to somewhat retract my claims, but then I have another set > > of surprises. > Righto. > > > I realized (remembered) that nfs has its own VOP_PUTPAGES() method. > >

Re: process killed: text file modification

On 2017. 03. 21. 3:40, Rick Macklem wrote: Gergely Czuczy wrote: [stuff snipped] Actually I want to test it, but you guys are so vehemently discussing it, I thought it would be better to do so, once you guys settled your analysis on the code. Also, me not having the problem occurring, I don't

Re: process killed: text file modification

Gergely Czuczy wrote: [stuff snipped] > Actually I want to test it, but you guys are so vehemently discussing > it, I thought it would be better to do so, once you guys settled your > analysis on the code. Also, me not having the problem occurring, I don't > think would mean it's solved, since

Re: process killed: text file modification

Konstantin Belousov wrote: [stuff snipped] > Yes, I have to somewhat retract my claims, but then I have another set > of surprises. Righto. > I realized (remembered) that nfs has its own VOP_PUTPAGES() method. > Implementation seems to directly initiate write RPC request using the > pages as the

Re: process killed: text file modification

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 08:52:50PM +, Rick Macklem wrote: > Kostik wrote: > [stuff snipped] > >> >> Dirty pages are flushed by writes, so if we have a set of dirty pages > >> >> and > >> >> async vm_object_page_clean() is called on the vnode' vm_object, we get > >> >> a bunch of delayed-write

Re: process killed: text file modification

On 2017. 03. 19. 21:52, Rick Macklem wrote: Kostik wrote: [stuff snipped] Dirty pages are flushed by writes, so if we have a set of dirty pages and async vm_object_page_clean() is called on the vnode' vm_object, we get a bunch of delayed-write AKA dirty buffers. This is possible even after

Re: process killed: text file modification

Kostik wrote: [stuff snipped] >> >> Dirty pages are flushed by writes, so if we have a set of dirty pages and >> >> async vm_object_page_clean() is called on the vnode' vm_object, we get >> >> a bunch of delayed-write AKA dirty buffers. This is possible even after >> >> VOP_CLOSE() was done, e.g.

Re: process killed: text file modification

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 09:23:00PM +, Rick Macklem wrote: > Dimitry Andric wrote: > >On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:19, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 01:53:46PM +, Rick Macklem wrote: > >>> Well, I don't mind adding ncl_flush(), but it shouldn't

Re: process killed: text file modification

Dimitry Andric wrote: >On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:19, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 01:53:46PM +, Rick Macklem wrote: >>> Well, I don't mind adding ncl_flush(), but it shouldn't be >>> necessary. I actually had it in the first >>> rendition of the

Re: process killed: text file modification

On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:19, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 01:53:46PM +, Rick Macklem wrote: >> Well, I don't mind adding ncl_flush(), but it shouldn't be >> necessary. I actually had it in the first >> rendition of the patch, but took it out

Re: process killed: text file modification

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 01:53:46PM +, Rick Macklem wrote: > Well, I don't mind adding ncl_flush(), but it shouldn't be > necessary. I actually had it in the first > rendition of the patch, but took it out because it should happen > on the VOP_CLOSE() if any writing to the buffer cache happened

Re: process killed: text file modification

AM To: Rick Macklem Cc: Dimitry Andric; Ian Lepore; Gergely Czuczy; FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: process killed: text file modification On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 03:10:57AM +, Rick Macklem wrote: > Hope you don't mind a top post... > Attached is a little patch you could te

Re: process killed: text file modification

bsd.org> > on behalf of Rick Macklem <rmack...@uoguelph.ca> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:57:23 PM > To: Dimitry Andric; Ian Lepore > Cc: Gergely Czuczy; FreeBSD Current > Subject: Re: process killed: text file modification > > Dimitry Andric wrote: > [lots of

Re: process killed: text file modification

7 9:57:23 PM To: Dimitry Andric; Ian Lepore Cc: Gergely Czuczy; FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: process killed: text file modification Dimitry Andric wrote: [lots of stuff snipped] > I'm also running into this problem, but while using lld. I must set > vfs.timestamp_precision to 1 (e.g. sec + n

Re: process killed: text file modification

Dimitry Andric wrote: [lots of stuff snipped] > I'm also running into this problem, but while using lld. I must set > vfs.timestamp_precision to 1 (e.g. sec + ns accurate to 1/HZ) on both > the client and the server, to make it work. > > Instead of GNU ld, lld uses mmap to write to the output

Re: process killed: text file modification

> On 12 Mar 2017, at 18:47, Ian Lepore wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 21:07 +0100, Gergely Czuczy wrote: >> >> On 2017. 03. 09. 20:47, Gergely Czuczy wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2017. 03. 09. 19:44, John Baldwin wrote: On Thursday, March 09, 2017 03:31:56 PM

Re: process killed: text file modification

On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 21:07 +0100, Gergely Czuczy wrote: > > On 2017. 03. 09. 20:47, Gergely Czuczy wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2017. 03. 09. 19:44, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, March 09, 2017 03:31:56 PM Gergely Czuczy wrote: > > > > > > > > [+freebsd-fs] > > > > > > > > > >

Re: process killed: text file modification

On 2017. 03. 09. 20:47, Gergely Czuczy wrote: On 2017. 03. 09. 19:44, John Baldwin wrote: On Thursday, March 09, 2017 03:31:56 PM Gergely Czuczy wrote: [+freebsd-fs] On 2017. 03. 09. 14:20, Gergely Czuczy wrote: On 2017. 03. 09. 11:27, Gergely Czuczy wrote: Hello, I'm trying to build

Re: process killed: text file modification

On 2017. 03. 09. 19:44, John Baldwin wrote: On Thursday, March 09, 2017 03:31:56 PM Gergely Czuczy wrote: [+freebsd-fs] On 2017. 03. 09. 14:20, Gergely Czuczy wrote: On 2017. 03. 09. 11:27, Gergely Czuczy wrote: Hello, I'm trying to build a few things from ports on an rpi3, the ports

Re: process killed: text file modification

On Thursday, March 09, 2017 03:31:56 PM Gergely Czuczy wrote: > [+freebsd-fs] > > > On 2017. 03. 09. 14:20, Gergely Czuczy wrote: > > On 2017. 03. 09. 11:27, Gergely Czuczy wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I'm trying to build a few things from ports on an rpi3, the ports > >> collection is mounted

Re: process killed: text file modification

[+freebsd-fs] On 2017. 03. 09. 14:20, Gergely Czuczy wrote: On 2017. 03. 09. 11:27, Gergely Czuczy wrote: Hello, I'm trying to build a few things from ports on an rpi3, the ports collection is mounted over NFS from another machine. When it's trying to build pkg i'm getting the error

Re: process killed: text file modification

On 2017. 03. 09. 11:27, Gergely Czuczy wrote: Hello, I'm trying to build a few things from ports on an rpi3, the ports collection is mounted over NFS from another machine. When it's trying to build pkg i'm getting the error message in syslog: rpi3 kernel: pid 4451 (sh), uid 0, was killed: