TB --- 2012-11-27 04:40:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-11-27 04:40:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
TB --- 2012-11-27 04:40:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-11-27 04:40:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
TB --- 2012-11-27 05:45:58 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-11-27 05:45:58 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
On 11/19/12 11:32 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> today i was comparing the performance of some netmap-related code
> on FreeBSD and Linux (RELENG_9 vs 3.2) and i was surprised to see that
> our system calls are significantly slower.
> On comparable hardware (i7-2600k vs E5-1650) the syscall
> getppid() t
TB --- 2012-11-27 04:40:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-11-27 04:40:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
On 26 November 2012 15:39, Lukasz Wojcik wrote:
> On 11/19/12 20:32, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>
>> today i was comparing the performance of some netmap-related code
>> on FreeBSD and Linux (RELENG_9 vs 3.2) and i was surprised to see that
>> our system calls are significantly slower.
>> On comparable h
a quick and easy way is to run the syscall in a tight loop for a sufficient
long time (1s or more) and use "time" to measure it.
At 100ns per call you need about 10M cycles to do one second.
cheers
luigi
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Lukasz Wojcik wrote:
> On 11/19/12 20:32, Luigi Rizzo wr
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 06:31:34AM -0800, sig6247 wrote:
Just checked out r243529, this only happens when the kernel is compiled
by clang, and only on i386, either recompiling the kernel with gcc or
booting from a UFS root works fine. Is it a kno
Hello,
(initially posted this to -questions@ a week ago, w/o reply)
I installed CURRENT on a new Thinkpad equipped with a Samsung 830 SSD:
ada0 at ahcich0 bus 0 scbus0 target 0 lun 0
ada0: ATA-9 SATA 3.x device
ada0: 600.000MB/s transfers (SATA 3.x, UDMA6, PIO 8192bytes)
ada0: Command Queueing
Kohji,
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 09:54:14AM +0900, Kohji Okuno wrote:
K> Would someone check the following code?
K>
K> If the hardware do not process an 802.1Q tag, the kernel repacks mbuf
K> in line 578-580. But, `struct ether_header *eh' was assigned at line 484.
K>
K> And, in line 611-637, be
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:37:54PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> "Michael W. Lucas" wrote
> in <20121123031753.ga59...@bewilderbeast.blackhelicopters.org>:
>
> mw> eval: setfib: not found
> mw> /usr/local/etc/rc.d/apache22: WARNING: failed to start apache22
> mw>
> mw> If I run /usr/local/etc/rc.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 06:31:34AM -0800, sig6247 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Just checked out r243529, this only happens when the kernel is compiled
> by clang, and only on i386, either recompiling the kernel with gcc or
> booting from a UFS root works fine. Is it a known problem?
It looks like that clan
Paul,
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 02:11:32PM -, Paul Webster wrote:
P> I only really need one question answered in honesty;
P>
P> I personally think that by forking our own version of PF we have
P> essentially made something totally different to what everyone wants to
P> use. Which is fine,
Hi,
Just checked out r243529, this only happens when the kernel is compiled
by clang, and only on i386, either recompiling the kernel with gcc or
booting from a UFS root works fine. Is it a known problem?
Thanks,
--
WARNING: WI
On 11/19/12 20:32, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
today i was comparing the performance of some netmap-related code
on FreeBSD and Linux (RELENG_9 vs 3.2) and i was surprised to see that
our system calls are significantly slower.
On comparable hardware (i7-2600k vs E5-1650) the syscall
getppid() takes about
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 09:54:14AM +0900, Kohji Okuno wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would someone check the following code?
>
> If the hardware do not process an 802.1Q tag, the kernel repacks mbuf
> in line 578-580. But, `struct ether_header *eh' was assigned at line 484.
>
> And, in line 611-637, because o
16 matches
Mail list logo