On Friday, August 20, 2010 3:42:27 pm Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 03:35:48PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday, August 20, 2010 3:19:53 pm Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > > It seems nobody replied to the mdf@ objection against wait of the
> > > new proc startup being equivale
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 03:35:48PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2010 3:19:53 pm Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > It seems nobody replied to the mdf@ objection against wait of the
> > new proc startup being equivalent to the LOR. I think that the wait
> > is safe, because the task is
On Friday, August 20, 2010 3:19:53 pm Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:55:08PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
> > On 19 August 2010 17:34, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:29:25 am pluknet wrote:
> > >> On 19 August 2010 00:07, John Baldwin wrote:
> > >> > On Wed
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:55:08PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
> On 19 August 2010 17:34, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:29:25 am pluknet wrote:
> >> On 19 August 2010 00:07, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:17:56 pm pluknet wrote:
> >> >> On 18 August
On 19 August 2010 17:34, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:29:25 am pluknet wrote:
>> On 19 August 2010 00:07, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:17:56 pm pluknet wrote:
>> >> On 18 August 2010 23:11, pluknet wrote:
>> >> > On 18 August 2010 17:46, Kostik
On Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:29:25 am pluknet wrote:
> On 19 August 2010 00:07, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:17:56 pm pluknet wrote:
> >> On 18 August 2010 23:11, pluknet wrote:
> >> > On 18 August 2010 17:46, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 02
On 19 August 2010 04:04, Rick Macklem wrote:
>> On 18 August 2010 12:07, pluknet wrote:
>> > On 17 August 2010 20:04, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Also please take a note of the John' suggestion to use the taskqueue.
>> >
>> > I decided to go this road. Thank you both.
>> > Now I do n
On 19 August 2010 00:07, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:17:56 pm pluknet wrote:
>> On 18 August 2010 23:11, pluknet wrote:
>> > On 18 August 2010 17:46, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 02:43:19PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
>> >>> On 18 August 2010 12:07, pl
> On 18 August 2010 12:07, pluknet wrote:
> > On 17 August 2010 20:04, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Also please take a note of the John' suggestion to use the taskqueue.
> >
> > I decided to go this road. Thank you both.
> > Now I do nfs buildkernel survive and prepare some benchmark resu
On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 3:17:56 pm pluknet wrote:
> On 18 August 2010 23:11, pluknet wrote:
> > On 18 August 2010 17:46, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 02:43:19PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
> >>> On 18 August 2010 12:07, pluknet wrote:
> >>> > On 17 August 2010 20:04, Kosti
On 18 August 2010 23:11, pluknet wrote:
> On 18 August 2010 17:46, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 02:43:19PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
>>> On 18 August 2010 12:07, pluknet wrote:
>>> > On 17 August 2010 20:04, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Also please take a note of
On 18 August 2010 17:46, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 02:43:19PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
>> On 18 August 2010 12:07, pluknet wrote:
>> > On 17 August 2010 20:04, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Also please take a note of the John' suggestion to use the taskqueue.
>> >
>
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 02:43:19PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
> On 18 August 2010 12:07, pluknet wrote:
> > On 17 August 2010 20:04, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Also please take a note of the John' suggestion to use the taskqueue.
> >
> > I decided to go this road. Thank you both.
> > Now I d
On 18 August 2010 12:07, pluknet wrote:
> On 17 August 2010 20:04, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>
>>
>> Also please take a note of the John' suggestion to use the taskqueue.
>
> I decided to go this road. Thank you both.
> Now I do nfs buildkernel survive and prepare some benchmark results.
>
So, I mo
On 17 August 2010 20:04, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 07:42:41PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
>> 2010/8/16 Kostik Belousov :
>> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:07:24PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
>> >> On 16 August 2010 21:05, pluknet wrote:
>> >> > Hi.
>> >> >
>> >> > Seeing on mostly idle,
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 07:42:41PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
>> 2010/8/16 Kostik Belousov :
>> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:07:24PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
>> >> On 16 August 2010 21:05, pluknet wrote:
>> >> > Hi.
>> >> >
>> >> > Seeing on mostl
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 07:42:41PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
> 2010/8/16 Kostik Belousov :
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:07:24PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
> >> On 16 August 2010 21:05, pluknet wrote:
> >> > Hi.
> >> >
> >> > Seeing on mostly idle, recently updated current, while closing a file.
> >> > Pr
2010/8/16 Kostik Belousov :
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:07:24PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
>> On 16 August 2010 21:05, pluknet wrote:
>> > Hi.
>> >
>> > Seeing on mostly idle, recently updated current, while closing a file.
>> > Presumably never reported on ML.
[...]
>>
> Both LORs are valid. The fork
On Monday, August 16, 2010 2:54:56 pm Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:07:24PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
> > On 16 August 2010 21:05, pluknet wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > Seeing on mostly idle, recently updated current, while closing a file.
> > > Presumably never reported on ML.
>
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:07:24PM +0400, pluknet wrote:
> On 16 August 2010 21:05, pluknet wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Seeing on mostly idle, recently updated current, while closing a file.
> > Presumably never reported on ML.
> >
> > lock order reversal:
> > 1st 0xff00198199f8 nfs (nfs) @ /usr/s
On 16 August 2010 21:05, pluknet wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Seeing on mostly idle, recently updated current, while closing a file.
> Presumably never reported on ML.
>
> lock order reversal:
> 1st 0xff00198199f8 nfs (nfs) @ /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c:301
> 2nd 0xff000234a048 filedesc structure
Hi.
Seeing on mostly idle, recently updated current, while closing a file.
Presumably never reported on ML.
lock order reversal:
1st 0xff00198199f8 nfs (nfs) @ /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c:301
2nd 0xff000234a048 filedesc structure (filedesc structure) @
/usr/src/sys/kern/kern_descrip.c
22 matches
Mail list logo