Re: named crashes on assertion in rbtdb.c on sparc64/SMP

2011-07-11 Thread KOT MATPOCKuH
2011/7/8 Marius Strobl mar...@alchemy.franken.de: In order to have a result which can be compared with the base BIND. Whether bind98 works or works without the ISC atomic operations says nothing about the bind96 port or the base version. Okey... Oops, sorry, I forgot to revert the previous

Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork()

2011-07-11 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 03:27:56PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote: This patch made by Petr Salinger improves compatibility with LinuxThreads in rfork() syscall. The Linux clone() implementation allows specifying the signal sent to parent when child terminates (instead of SIGCHLD). As the

Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork()

2011-07-11 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:23:36PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote: Can you, please, describe the reasoning behind the + if (sig == SIGCHLD) sig = 0; line ? The main reason is backward compatibility. The original FreeBSD code allows only to select between SIGUSR1 or SIGCHLD signals.

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Ivan Voras
On 07/07/2011 22:08, Steve Kargl wrote: 4BSD kernel gives for N = Ncpu + 1. 34 processes: 6 running, 28 sleeping PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIMECPU COMMAND 1417 kargl 1 710 370M 294M RUN 0 1:30 79.39% sasmp 1416 kargl 1 710

Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork()

2011-07-11 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:50:44PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote: RFLINUXPTH was used by the linuxthreads port, that was popular in the time of FreeBSD 4.x and may be 5.x to run mysql. I will object against this breakage. Do I understand correctly that API/ABI backward compatibility with

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 11/07/2011 17:41 Ivan Voras said the following: On 07/07/2011 22:08, Steve Kargl wrote: 4BSD kernel gives for N = Ncpu + 1. 34 processes: 6 running, 28 sleeping PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIMECPU COMMAND 1417 kargl 1 710 370M 294M RUN

Re: ZFS boot fails with two pools

2011-07-11 Thread Matt Burke
On 07/06/11 16:44, Berczi Gabor wrote: For some reason FreeBSD can't boot automatically: ... I have two pools, pool2 which is a mirrored zpool, and data being a raid-z pool. Note how the default should be pool2:/boot/zfsloader. How can I fix this? The following applies to 8-STABLE from

Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork()

2011-07-11 Thread Robert Millan
2011/7/11 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com: I shall state that the sig == SIGCHLD case is ugly. Having the separate flag do not send signal to the parent would be much less clumsy. What are the requirements for the ABI stability for Debian/kFreeBSD ? Can this be fixed now, or is it too late

Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork()

2011-07-11 Thread Petr Salinger
RFLINUXPTH was used by the linuxthreads port, that was popular in the time of FreeBSD 4.x and may be 5.x to run mysql. I will object against this breakage. Do I understand correctly that API/ABI backward compatibility with previous FreeBSD releases w.r.t RFLINUXPTH is needed ? The 1st patch

Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork()

2011-07-11 Thread Petr Salinger
Can you, please, describe the reasoning behind the + if (sig == SIGCHLD) sig = 0; line ? The main reason is backward compatibility. The original FreeBSD code allows only to select between SIGUSR1 or SIGCHLD signals. The our extension changes meaning of RFLINUXTHPN to select

Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork()

2011-07-11 Thread Petr Salinger
The 1st patch satisfies this. I agree that SIGCHLD part is not easily readable. The SIGCHLD part is ugly. This is why I am asking about possible ways to overcome this. We need a way to specify no signal. It can be new flag or ugly SIGCHLD. new flag: pros: cleaner design cons: one bit of

Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork()

2011-07-11 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 05:43:23PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote: The 1st patch satisfies this. I agree that SIGCHLD part is not easily readable. The SIGCHLD part is ugly. This is why I am asking about possible ways to overcome this. We need a way to specify no signal. It can be new flag or

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Adrian Chadd
That top output is averaged and slow to adjust. Using top as an indication as to what's really going on is likely not a good idea. 2c, Adrian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To

Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork()

2011-07-11 Thread Petr Salinger
I would instead use a new flag to specify a signal sent on the child death. Like RFTSIGZMB. If flag is not set, SIGCHLD is used. If it is set, the bit slice is used as signal number, 0 means do not send any signal. Please note that the signal should be checked for validity, it must be =

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 06:07:04PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: on 11/07/2011 17:41 Ivan Voras said the following: On 07/07/2011 22:08, Steve Kargl wrote: 4BSD kernel gives for N = Ncpu + 1. 34 processes: 6 running, 28 sleeping PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:42:02PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: That top output is averaged and slow to adjust. Using top as an indication as to what's really going on is likely not a good idea. Restoring top output here: PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIMECPU

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Ivan Voras
On 11 July 2011 17:07, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: Yeah, but what problem is demonstrated here? Are we confident that non-even workload is inherently bad? E.g.: 79.39 + .. + 77.59 5 * 80 = 400 100.00 + ... + 55.18 ~~ 402 which is more than theoretically possible :-) So it would

Re: [PATCH] Make top -P an interactive toggle

2011-07-11 Thread John Baldwin
On Saturday, July 09, 2011 5:44:16 am Alexander Best wrote: On Sat Jul 9 11, Alexander Best wrote: On Fri Jul 8 11, Alexander Best wrote: On Fri Jul 8 11, John Baldwin wrote: This patch lets you use 'P' while top is running to toggle between per-CPU and global CPU stats.

Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork()

2011-07-11 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 06:12:15PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote: I would instead use a new flag to specify a signal sent on the child death. Like RFTSIGZMB. If flag is not set, SIGCHLD is used. If it is set, the bit slice is used as signal number, 0 means do not send any signal. Please note

Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork()

2011-07-11 Thread Petr Salinger
Should the bit slice be 7 or 8 bits ? I propose to go 8 bits, and add the check to be future-proof. It seems that we already parse GNU/kFreeBSD brandnote. I think this could be used to distinguish between old behaviour, that is currently used by your libc, and proposed new interface, if

Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork()

2011-07-11 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 08:05:56PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote: Should the bit slice be 7 or 8 bits ? I propose to go 8 bits, and add the check to be future-proof. It seems that we already parse GNU/kFreeBSD brandnote. I think this could be used to distinguish between old behaviour, that is

Re: [PATCH] Make top -P an interactive toggle

2011-07-11 Thread Alexander Best
On Mon Jul 11 11, John Baldwin wrote: On Saturday, July 09, 2011 5:44:16 am Alexander Best wrote: On Sat Jul 9 11, Alexander Best wrote: On Fri Jul 8 11, Alexander Best wrote: On Fri Jul 8 11, John Baldwin wrote: This patch lets you use 'P' while top is running to toggle between

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Arnaud Lacombe
Hi, On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote: (OT, yes, but I'd like to take a stab at explaining why these things fall to the wayside..) On 7 July 2011 12:08, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote: What would be the point to even start looking at an issue?

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: For the record, I would like to see enforced public review for _every_ patch *before* it is checked in, as a strong rule. gcc system is particularly interesting. But it is not likely to happen in FreeBSD where FreeBSD committers

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 11/07/2011 23:33 Arnaud Lacombe said the following: For the record, I would like to see enforced public review for _every_ patch *before* it is checked in, as a strong rule. gcc system is particularly interesting. But it is not likely to happen in FreeBSD where FreeBSD committers are

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Arnaud Lacombe
Hi, On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: For the record, I would like to see enforced public review for _every_ patch *before* it is checked in, as a strong rule. gcc system is

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Arnaud Lacombe
Hi, On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote: on 11/07/2011 23:33 Arnaud Lacombe said the following: For the record, I would like to see enforced public review for _every_ patch *before* it is checked in, as a strong rule. gcc system is particularly interesting.

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Arnaud Lacombe
Hi, [re-sent publicly, I did not Replied-to-all:)] On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: For the

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 05:50:44PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Ali Mashtizadeh
Maybe someone can setup something like reviewboard [1] for developers to use. This may also help folks who want to keep abreast of the current work in a particular subsystem or get involved into the development process more. At my company we use reviews and it seems to help the catch some bugs and

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread mdf
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Ali Mashtizadeh mashtiza...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe someone can setup something like reviewboard [1] for developers to use. This may also help folks who want to keep abreast of the current work in a particular subsystem or get involved into the development

Re: Heavy I/O blocks FreeBSD box for several seconds

2011-07-11 Thread Rick Macklem
m...@freebsd.org wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Ali Mashtizadeh mashtiza...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe someone can setup something like reviewboard [1] for developers to use. This may also help folks who want to keep abreast of the current work in a particular subsystem or get

Re: cardbus panic: end address is not aligned

2011-07-11 Thread Doug Barton
On 07/08/2011 06:19, John Baldwin wrote: Hmm, well that's odd. It didn't grow it enough it seems. Also, can you boot your machine, then do 'sysctl debug.bootverbose=1', insert the card and record the messages in dmesg when it does? (You can likely get those out of kgdb.) I tried