Re: WITHOUT_NIS after bsd.opts.mk / src.opts.mk split

2014-05-09 Thread Sulev-Madis Silber (ketas)
On 2014-05-09 07:32, Warner Losh wrote: On May 8, 2014, at 10:12 PM, Sulev-Madis Silber (ketas) madis...@hot.ee wrote: On 2014-05-09 02:54, Warner Losh wrote: On May 8, 2014, at 3:26 PM, Guy Yur guy...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, After the bsd.opts.mk / src.opts.mk split WITHOUT_NIS in

Re: ports broken in current

2014-05-09 Thread Trond Endrestøl
On Thu, 8 May 2014 09:04-0700, Warner Losh wrote: On May 7, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Shane Ambler free...@shaneware.biz wrote: I have just updated my 11-CURRENT tinderbox machine and found an issue that breaks ports building. make: /usr/share/mk/bsd.port.mk line 15: Could not find bsd.own.mk

Re: ale(4) cannot negotiate as GigE

2014-05-09 Thread Alexey Dokuchaev
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:38:16PM +0900, Yonghyeon PYUN wrote: On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 05:23:32PM +, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: I just had a chance to plug the Ethernet cable directly into my laptop's bge(4) port, and it immediately negotiated at 1000baseT; but with the switch, it can

Re: Questions and *little* bugs in new vt(9)

2014-05-09 Thread David Demelier
On 08/05/2014 17:09, Ed Maste wrote: On 8 May 2014 04:16, David Demelier demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote: Hi there, I'm currently trying vt(9) on a CURRENT kernel (only the kernel not the base). I have very small bugs, not really serious. I'm currently using the radeon KMS driver. * When I

Re: WITHOUT_NIS after bsd.opts.mk / src.opts.mk split

2014-05-09 Thread Guy Yur
Hi, On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote: On May 8, 2014, at 3:26 PM, Guy Yur guy...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, After the bsd.opts.mk / src.opts.mk split WITHOUT_NIS in src.conf doesn't work. It should still work… At least that’s the intention... src.conf is

RE: wbem, cim and instrumentation

2014-05-09 Thread Bruno Lauzé
On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 08:39 -0400, Bruno Lauzé wrote: One thing I feel FreeBSD always ignored is instrumentation frameworks. I am talking about wbem, cim model and implementation like OpenPegasus. Why is that? I ported OpenPegasus to work in FreeBSD with few patches. However, of course

[FIXED] Re: New and exciting panic, possibly re(4)

2014-05-09 Thread Sean Bruno
On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 16:46 +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: On 07.05.2014 23:24, Sean Bruno wrote: While screwing around with comcast, I can trivially get this panic out of my desktop machine, and am very confused. It seems to happen on link change up/down events. I'm running

Re: [rfc] bind per-cpu timeout threads to each CPU

2014-05-09 Thread John Baldwin
On Thursday, May 08, 2014 11:43:39 pm Adrian Chadd wrote: Hi, I'd like to revisit this now. I'd like to commit this stuff as-is and then take some time to revisit the catch-all softclock from cpu0 swi. It's more complicated than it needs to be as it just assumes timeout_cpu == cpuid of

Re: [rfc] bind per-cpu timeout threads to each CPU

2014-05-09 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 9 May 2014 10:49, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote: On Thursday, May 08, 2014 11:43:39 pm Adrian Chadd wrote: Hi, I'd like to revisit this now. I'd like to commit this stuff as-is and then take some time to revisit the catch-all softclock from cpu0 swi. It's more complicated than it

Re: [rfc] bind per-cpu timeout threads to each CPU

2014-05-09 Thread Peter Grehan
How about i instead do the comprimise: * i'll pin all other swi's * default swi isn't pinned by default, but one can flip on a sysctl at boot time to pin it How's that sound? And also please a sysctl that disables any swi pinning. It is sometimes useful to change the default cpuset, for

Re: [rfc] bind per-cpu timeout threads to each CPU

2014-05-09 Thread Adrian Chadd
here, though disabling MSI-x in them is a workaround). Yup. I've just done that. http://people.freebsd.org/~adrian/norse/20140509-swi-pin-1.diff Which workloads are you thinking about? Maybe we could introduce some higher level description of which CPU(s) at boot time to do freebsd stuff

Re: [rfc] bind per-cpu timeout threads to each CPU

2014-05-09 Thread John Baldwin
On Friday, May 09, 2014 3:50:28 pm Peter Grehan wrote: How about i instead do the comprimise: * i'll pin all other swi's * default swi isn't pinned by default, but one can flip on a sysctl at boot time to pin it How's that sound? And also please a sysctl that disables any swi

Re: [rfc] bind per-cpu timeout threads to each CPU

2014-05-09 Thread Peter Grehan
Yup. I've just done that. http://people.freebsd.org/~adrian/norse/20140509-swi-pin-1.diff Thanks, that'll work. Which workloads are you thinking about? Maybe we could introduce some higher level description of which CPU(s) at boot time to do freebsd stuff on, and then don't start things

Re: [rfc] bind per-cpu timeout threads to each CPU

2014-05-09 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 9 May 2014 16:49, Peter Grehan gre...@freebsd.org wrote: Yup. I've just done that. http://people.freebsd.org/~adrian/norse/20140509-swi-pin-1.diff Thanks, that'll work. Which workloads are you thinking about? Maybe we could introduce some higher level description of which CPU(s

Re: [rfc] bind per-cpu timeout threads to each CPU

2014-05-09 Thread Adrian Chadd
ok, I've committed it but I've left the default at don't pin. That way the existing behaviour hasn't changed and it's easy to flip on to play with. Thanks for the feedback John / Peter! -a ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list