Re: INVARIANTS and -current
Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Eivind Eklund wrote: > > (Based on suggestion from Robert Watson.) > > > > I want to enable INVARIANTS by default in -current. This result in some > > slowdown, but it also makes it more likely that we'll find bugs quickly. > > People that want to run -current should know enough to disable it if it is > > in the way, anyway. > > I support your proposal. But, have a question: Has > anyone actually measured the performance impact of > INVARIANTS? I'm tempted to suggest that INVARIANTS > should be the default in not only -current in 5.0 > when she's released. Anyone interested in performance > in 5.0 will build custom kernels, and so he can turn > INVARIANTS off. sorry for the late answer. well, I'm not at all w/ you to enable INVARIANTS in -stable. the reason is simple. I had INVARIANTS for months (years?), but in september, I got plenty of "TRAP FAULT 12 and calcru: monotonisation" because of this. after disabling INVARIANTS, no problems anymore. I've posted a message about that in -stable w/ no answer, as I remember me. so, before to enable INVARIANTS in -stable or anywhere, the code should be much better checked, at least around kern_resource.c. Cyrille. -- home: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] work: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: INVARIANTS and -current
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:06:14PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Could someone give a quick explanation what INVARIANTS does? It adds more internal consistency checks to the kernel. This make bugs show up more promptly and in a more predictable fashion, which again makes it easier to fix the bugs. (It also makes the bugs more likely to result in a crash and less likely to result in data corruption, which IMO is good.) Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: INVARIANTS and -current
Could someone give a quick explanation what INVARIANTS does?
JAn
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Boris Popov wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Eivind Eklund wrote:
>
> > I want to enable INVARIANTS by default in -current. This result in some
> > slowdown, but it also makes it more likely that we'll find bugs quickly.
> > People that want to run -current should know enough to disable it if it is
> > in the way, anyway.
> >
> > Well-reasoned objections welcome.
>
> Yes, running kernel with INVARIANTS is a very good idea (in fact,
> my -current setup runs it for over a year now). But this option will
> produce inconsistent data structures in the kernel and modules (just like
> with SMP case). While it is recommended to avoid modules on -current - I'm
> don't agree with this statement because many people use them.
>
> In any way, fix for this is very simple (it assumes that
> INVARIANTS defined somewhere in the make.conf or sys.mk):
>
> Index: conf/kmod.mk
> ===
> RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/conf/kmod.mk,v
> retrieving revision 1.83
> diff -u -r1.83 kmod.mk
> --- conf/kmod.mk 2000/09/05 22:37:46 1.83
> +++ conf/kmod.mk 2000/09/30 05:55:55
> @@ -90,6 +90,10 @@
> CFLAGS+= ${COPTS} -D_KERNEL ${CWARNFLAGS}
> CFLAGS+= -DKLD_MODULE
>
> +.if defined(INVARIANTS)
> +CFLAGS+= -DINVARIANTS
> +.endif
> +
> # Don't use any standard or source-relative include directories.
> # Since -nostdinc will annull any previous -I paths, we repeat all
> # such paths after -nostdinc. It doesn't seem to be possible to
>
> --
> Boris Popov
> http://www.butya.kz/~bp/
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: INVARIANTS and -current
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Eivind Eklund wrote:
> I want to enable INVARIANTS by default in -current. This result in some
> slowdown, but it also makes it more likely that we'll find bugs quickly.
> People that want to run -current should know enough to disable it if it is
> in the way, anyway.
>
> Well-reasoned objections welcome.
Yes, running kernel with INVARIANTS is a very good idea (in fact,
my -current setup runs it for over a year now). But this option will
produce inconsistent data structures in the kernel and modules (just like
with SMP case). While it is recommended to avoid modules on -current - I'm
don't agree with this statement because many people use them.
In any way, fix for this is very simple (it assumes that
INVARIANTS defined somewhere in the make.conf or sys.mk):
Index: conf/kmod.mk
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/conf/kmod.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.83
diff -u -r1.83 kmod.mk
--- conf/kmod.mk2000/09/05 22:37:46 1.83
+++ conf/kmod.mk2000/09/30 05:55:55
@@ -90,6 +90,10 @@
CFLAGS+= ${COPTS} -D_KERNEL ${CWARNFLAGS}
CFLAGS+= -DKLD_MODULE
+.if defined(INVARIANTS)
+CFLAGS+= -DINVARIANTS
+.endif
+
# Don't use any standard or source-relative include directories.
# Since -nostdinc will annull any previous -I paths, we repeat all
# such paths after -nostdinc. It doesn't seem to be possible to
--
Boris Popov
http://www.butya.kz/~bp/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: INVARIANTS and -current
Eivind Eklund wrote: > (Based on suggestion from Robert Watson.) > > I want to enable INVARIANTS by default in -current. This result in some > slowdown, but it also makes it more likely that we'll find bugs quickly. > People that want to run -current should know enough to disable it if it is > in the way, anyway. I support your proposal. But, have a question: Has anyone actually measured the performance impact of INVARIANTS? I'm tempted to suggest that INVARIANTS should be the default in not only -current in 5.0 when she's released. Anyone interested in performance in 5.0 will build custom kernels, and so he can turn INVARIANTS off. -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
