Re: Supermicro X9SCV-Q: no boot options to define

2019-12-11 Thread Gary Jennejohn
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:23:59 +0100 "Hartmann, O." wrote: > Hello folks, > > my apology for polluting this list with a non-FreeBSD specific problem, > but since Supermicro is a veryy often used vendor in the FreeBSD > user/developer community I might find help here much fast. > > I got hands on

Re: any scheduler/ipi/wakeup bug fixed in the last year?

2019-12-11 Thread Andriy Gapon
On 11/12/2019 13:05, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 12:48:36PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: ... >> tdq_oldswitchcnt = 26, tdq_lowpri = 92 '\\', tdq_ipipending = 0 '\000', >> tdq_idx ... > What is the value of tdq_ipipending ? > See https://reviews.freebsd.org/D22758 It's

Re: any scheduler/ipi/wakeup bug fixed in the last year?

2019-12-11 Thread Andriy Gapon
On 11/12/2019 12:48, Andriy Gapon wrote: > So, if I am not confused, it appears like possibly a notification from a > waking > CPU to the woken CPU (CPU3) was never delivered. > Potentially, a problem with cpu_idle_wakeup() ? > > I wonder if there have been any bug fixes in that area over the

any scheduler/ipi/wakeup bug fixed in the last year?

2019-12-11 Thread Andriy Gapon
I am investigating a problem that originally looked like a ZFS I/O hang. But it quickly became obvious that the GEOM "up" queue was not being processed. (kgdb) p g_bio_run_up $54 = {bio_queue = {tqh_first = 0xf801d8627178, tqh_last = 0xf80134751658}, bio_queue_lock = {lock_object =

Re: any scheduler/ipi/wakeup bug fixed in the last year?

2019-12-11 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 12:48:36PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > I am investigating a problem that originally looked like a ZFS I/O hang. > But it quickly became obvious that the GEOM "up" queue was not being > processed. > (kgdb) p g_bio_run_up > $54 = {bio_queue = {tqh_first =

Re: any scheduler/ipi/wakeup bug fixed in the last year?

2019-12-11 Thread Hans Petter Selasky
I wonder if there have been any bug fixes in that area over the past year or so. Any help and pointers are welcome. Hi, A long time ago I fixed an issue for ARM: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/265913 I've always wondered why x86 does some fixed amount of idle spins before going to

ffs_fhtovp: inode overflow?

2019-12-11 Thread Eric van Gyzen
Since ino64 went in, Coverity complains that the two "ino >= foo" comparisons in ffs_fhtovp() compare a 64-bit value to a 32-bit. Is this a problem in practice? Eric ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: Supermicro X9SCV-Q: no boot options to define

2019-12-11 Thread Miroslav Lachman
Hartmann, O. wrote on 2019/12/11 19:07: The AMI BIOS is at 2.10.1208 from 4th Nov 2012. There is a newer firmware available, but I can't install the firmware: while being able to UEFI USB flahes, it is impossible to boot FreeDOS 1.1 from an USB flash drive, even having properly set Legacy Boot

Re: Supermicro X9SCV-Q: no boot options to define

2019-12-11 Thread Hartmann, O.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:48:22 +0100 Gary Jennejohn wrote: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 08:23:59 +0100 > "Hartmann, O." wrote: > > > Hello folks, > > > > my apology for polluting this list with a non-FreeBSD specific > > problem, but since Supermicro is a veryy often used vendor in the > > FreeBSD

Re: ffs_fhtovp: inode overflow?

2019-12-11 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:26:41AM -0600, Eric van Gyzen wrote: > Since ino64 went in, Coverity complains that the two "ino >= foo" > comparisons in ffs_fhtovp() compare a 64-bit value to a 32-bit. Is this > a problem in practice? I do not think that this a problem, and Coverity could be a bit