On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:04:40AM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
My build machine (dmesg attached) is a dual CPU, single-core box; my
laptop is a single CPU, single-core box. I track head on each daily;
while the build machine has been locking up during the transition to
multi-user mode since
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
I'm getting crashes when trying to debug mozilla (under KSE).
The panic message is panic: absolutely cannot call smp_ipi_shootdown
with interrupts already disabled. Attached is the trace.
Any ideas?
% (kgdb) bt
% #0 doadump () at
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
I'm getting crashes when trying to debug mozilla (under KSE).
The panic message is panic: absolutely cannot call smp_ipi_shootdown
with interrupts already disabled. Attached is the trace.
Any ideas?
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
I'm getting crashes when trying to debug mozilla (under KSE).
The panic message is panic: absolutely cannot call smp_ipi_shootdown
with interrupts already disabled. Attached is the trace.
Any ideas?
It seems Petri Helenius wrote:
The problem of not being able to reboot without a panic seems to persist on
late current with ATAng and SMP.
The below doesn't say much actually, but I can reboot to my hearts content
on my SMP box here with no problems. What else do you have in that kernel ?
Soren Schmidt wrote:
It seems Petri Helenius wrote:
The problem of not being able to reboot without a panic seems to persist on
late current with ATAng and SMP.
The below doesn't say much actually, but I can reboot to my hearts content
on my SMP box here with no problems. What else do you
At 6:16 PM -0400 8/11/03, Eriq Lamar wrote:
Is there any advantage in 5.1 over 4.8 for two amd mp's. and
if so could someone tell what they are. I am interested in
building dual system using mp's but not sure which version
would be better.
I run 5.x on a dual-Althon 2000 machine. I have no idea
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:25:38AM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Eriq Lamar wrote:
Is there any advantage in 5.1 over 4.8 for two amd mp's. and if so could
someone tell what they are. I am interested in building dual system using
mp's but not sure which version would be
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:25:38AM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Eriq Lamar wrote:
Is there any advantage in 5.1 over 4.8 for two amd mp's. and if so could
someone tell what they are. I am interested in building dual system using
mp's but not sure which version would be
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: smp in 5.1
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:40:21 -0400 (EDT)
I guess I'll chime in as well... I have a Dual Athlon 2000+ MP here and
it's running like a charm with SCHED_4BSD.
Andy
Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant
Silicon Landmark, LLC
PM
To: Andy Farkas
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Eriq Lamar
Subject: Re: smp in 5.1
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:25:38AM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Eriq Lamar wrote:
Is there any advantage in 5.1 over 4.8 for two amd mp's. and if so
could someone tell what they are. I am
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Eriq Lamar wrote:
Is there any advantage in 5.1 over 4.8 for two amd mp's. and if so could
someone tell what they are. I am interested in building dual system using
mp's but not sure which version would be better.
Scheduling in 5.1 is broken (sched_ule doesn't even
, August 11, 2003 7:10 PM
To: Andy Farkas
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Eriq Lamar
Subject: Re: smp in 5.1
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:25:38AM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Eriq Lamar wrote:
Is there any advantage in 5.1 over 4.8 for two amd mp's. and if so
could someone tell what
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Bosko Milekic wrote:
BM
BMOn Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 08:31:26PM +0200, Lara Harti Brandt wrote:
BM[...]
BM Well the problem is, that nothing is starved. I have an idle machine and
BM a zone that I have limited to 60 or so items. When allocating the 2nd
BM item I get block on
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 09:03:00AM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Bosko Milekic wrote:
BM
BMOn Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 08:31:26PM +0200, Lara Harti Brandt wrote:
BM[...]
BM Well the problem is, that nothing is starved. I have an idle machine and
BM a zone that I have
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Bosko Milekic wrote:
BM
BMOn Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 09:03:00AM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote:
BM On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Bosko Milekic wrote:
BM
BM BM
BM BMOn Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 08:31:26PM +0200, Lara Harti Brandt wrote:
BM BM[...]
BM BM Well the problem is, that nothing is
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 03:47:54PM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Bosko Milekic wrote:
[...]
BM It sounds to me like your example is really not the general-case one.
BM Basically, you're using a zone capped off at 1 page. Currently in
BM UMA, this is the size of the slab.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Bosko Milekic wrote:
BM A. Given the explanation, the small size of the limits makes a
BM lot more sense now. Previously, the limit probably enforced the
BM actual number of cached (pre-allocated) items in the pool. So, it was
BM more than just a limit, it was a
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
Andy Farkas wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
It looks tp me that if we make a thread runnable
and there is a processor in the idle loop, the idle processor should be
kicked in some way to make it go get the newly runnable
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Andy Farkas wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
Andy Farkas wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
It looks tp me that if we make a thread runnable
and there is a processor in the idle loop, the idle processor should be
kicked in
Mr Wolf,
Heh, you noticed :)
Currently (cpu_idle_hlt=1) the load is fluctuating between 2.20 and 3.60
every few minutes! (xload looks like a graph of a sinewave)
If I set cpu_idle_hlt back to 0 the load goes back to a steady 3.80 where
it should be.
define should.
When all 3 seti's
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Andy Farkas wrote:
Mr Wolf,
Heh, you noticed :)
Currently (cpu_idle_hlt=1) the load is fluctuating between 2.20 and 3.60
every few minutes! (xload looks like a graph of a sinewave)
If I set cpu_idle_hlt back to 0 the load goes back to a steady 3.80 where
Bosko Milekic wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 07:05:58PM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote:
Hi all,
it seems there is a problem with the zone allocator in SMP systems.
I have a zone, that has an upper limit on items that resolves to an
upper limit of pages of 1. It turns out, that allocations from
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 08:31:26PM +0200, Lara Harti Brandt wrote:
[...]
Well the problem is, that nothing is starved. I have an idle machine and
a zone that I have limited to 60 or so items. When allocating the 2nd
item I get block on the zone limit. Usually I get unblocked whenever I
free
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003, Alp ATICI wrote:
I was wondering whether the SMPng page at http://www.freebsd.org/smp is
updated as those features are added. Because it seems like no feature
update for long.
For instance is the preemptible kernel going to be a part of 5.x series or
going
to be
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 02:47:42 +0100 (BST)
RMH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello gentlemen,
it seems CPU_SUSP_HLT does nothing for SMP kernels.
i386/i386/machdep.c:
#ifdef SMP
static int cpu_idle_hlt = 0;
#else
static int cpu_idle_hlt = 1;
#endif
It's noted that when enabled
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Killing wrote:
Halting them will still cause the CPUs to be detected. They just won't do
any useful work.
Yep but the issue is that all the core admin tools are unaware of this and
hence include the virtual cores in idle calcs etc making load monitoring
impossible
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Steven Hartland wrote:
sysctl machdep.hlt_logical_cpus:
machdep.hlt_logical_cpus: 1
Halting them will still cause the CPUs to be detected. They just won't do
any useful work.
Relevant sections from dmesg:
Programming 24 pins in IOAPIC #0
IOAPIC #0 intpin 2 - irq 0
- Original Message -
From: Doug White [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sysctl machdep.hlt_logical_cpus:
machdep.hlt_logical_cpus: 1
Halting them will still cause the CPUs to be detected. They just won't do
any useful work.
Yep but the issue is that all the core admin tools are unaware of this
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Killing wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Doug White [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sysctl machdep.hlt_logical_cpus:
machdep.hlt_logical_cpus: 1
Halting them will still cause the CPUs to be detected. They just won't do
any useful work.
Yep but the issue is that
Well, hyperthreading can be disabled via a kernel directive, right?
From what I've seen that was removed between 5.0 and 5.1 correct
me if Im wrong.
Which ever it needs someone to pick it up ASAP dont you think?
Really? What's the hurry? FreeBSD 5.x isn't even bootable/installable
Killing wrote this message on Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 18:47 +0100:
I suppose the hurry is that basic utils that we use day to day like top
and vmstat to monitor machine load cannot be trusted to give accurate
info.
Actually, the basic tools ARE correct, there is a cpu sitting idle that
the
Original Message -
From: John-Mark Gurney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes 5.X is still new tech and may not run on all machines but on the ones
which it does ( and it runs very well here ) basic tools are required. If
it doesn't run on a machine your under know false impressions, if however
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a brutal workaround (use a single 8254 clock and simulate the RTC
clock), but it breaks some things (eg: high res profiling). I really dont
like it, and I'm working on a different possibility as well (keep the 8259
PIC alive and use it in ExtInt
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:09:09AM +0100, Nicolas Kowalski wrote:
The server is configured for Unixware7, as told in the archives.
our Compaq worked when configured for linux
--
Fritz Heinrichmeyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FernUniversitaet Hagen, LG ES, 58084 Hagen (Germany)
To Unsubscribe:
Fritz Heinrichmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:09:09AM +0100, Nicolas Kowalski wrote:
The server is configured for Unixware7, as told in the archives.
our Compaq worked when configured for linux
Nope :-(.
I just tried this option, and the server still hangs at the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nicolas Kowalski writes:
Fritz Heinrichmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:09:09AM +0100, Nicolas Kowalski wrote:
The server is configured for Unixware7, as told in the archives.
our Compaq worked when configured for linux
Nope :-(.
I
On 15-Jan-2003 Nicolas Kowalski wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I had a Compaq visit my lab recently. Unless the aic driver were
removed from the kernel (disabling it might have worked too) it
would screw up the floppy driver.
This sounds like black magic, but the explanation is that
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Is the ML370 a new box? I've heard rumors recently that one of the
recent Compaq boxes effectively doesn't generate clock interrupts
in SMP mode and there isn't a workaround for that at the moment.
Yes. I received it last Friday.
I think these
: John Baldwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:55 AM
To: Nicolas Kowalski
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SMP hang at boot on Compaq Proliant ML370
On 15-Jan-2003 Nicolas Kowalski wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I had a Compaq visit my lab
Cagle, John (ISS-Houston) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's a vicious rumor -- no operating system could work without clock
interrupts in SMP mode... Could it?
Which generation of the ML370 is having this problem? I had a similar
problem on another box that was corrected with a newer BIOS
problem on another box that was corrected with a newer BIOS version.
Thanks,
John
-Original Message-
From: John Baldwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:55 AM
To: Nicolas Kowalski
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SMP hang at boot on Compaq
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SMP hang at boot on Compaq Proliant ML370
On 15-Jan-2003 Nicolas Kowalski wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I had a Compaq visit my lab recently. Unless the aic driver were
removed from the kernel (disabling it might have worked
too) it would
screw
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SMP hang at boot on Compaq Proliant ML370
John Baldwin wrote:
On 15-Jan-2003 Cagle, John (ISS-Houston) wrote:
That's a vicious rumor -- no operating system could work without
clock interrupts in SMP mode... Could it?
I think it had something to do more
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:44:57 -0500
Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
ISO's? Do people think that would be a useful item to include?
Yes and no, let me explain. The first thing I do just after I install
FreBSD on a box (given it has enough cpu power) is rebuild world and
kernel
I haven't had any Hard Locks since I upgraded the BIOS on my
BP6 from LP to RU and cvsup/buildworld/installworld again.
At the moment I'm thinking that my system is stable again, but
won't feel comfortable with that until I do some more stress
testing. I've gotten a panic, but I think its
Le Wednesday 20 November 2002 11:25, Joel M. Baldwin a écrit :
I haven't had any Hard Locks since I upgraded the BIOS on my
BP6 from LP to RU and cvsup/buildworld/installworld again.
I'll upgrade my BIOS ASAP
At the moment I'm thinking that my system is stable again, but
won't feel
I have a couple BP6's running -stable and was having hard lock problems
under heavy IO until I dropped back to ATA33 on the drives (I moved them
to the onboard Intel controller instead of the HPT366). sos@ informed me
that the HPT366 has a buggy DMA controller and that ATA66 on them wouldn't
Le Tuesday 19 November 2002 22:35, Nate Lawson a écrit :
I have a couple BP6's running -stable and was having hard lock problems
under heavy IO until I dropped back to ATA33 on the drives (I moved them
to the onboard Intel controller instead of the HPT366). sos@ informed me
that the HPT366
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, On 11/17/02 18:34:
I haven't been able to complete a full buildworld with an SMP on a
Abit BP6 (bi-celeron) board for two weeks (the kernel config is just
a full GENERIC with SMP and APICIO options enabled).
I also am running a BP6. IS ANYONE successfully
--On Sunday, November 17, 2002 11:36 AM +0100 Thierry Herbelot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Sunday 17 November 2002 10:50, Joel M. Baldwin a écrit :
running dnet on a SMP kernel causes the kernel to panic.
[Hijacking another thread ?]
No problem, lets compare notes.
I haven't been able
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Thierry Herbelot wrote:
Even make -j1 buildworld with the SMP kernel ends with a complete freeze
of the machine (the kernel does not go to a panic where I could try a
backtrace)
I've seen several reports that using a serial break to get into ddb is now
quite a bit more
Le Sunday 17 November 2002 20:46, Robert Watson a écrit :
I've seen several reports that using a serial break to get into ddb is now
quite a bit more reliable than a keyboard break. If you're not already
using a serial console, you might want to give it a try (make sure to turn
on
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Robert Watson wrote:
I've seen several reports that using a serial break to get into ddb is now
quite a bit more reliable than a keyboard break. If you're not already
This is a fact. In RELENG_4, the keyboard interrupt handler is a
normal tty interrupt handler so it
Thus spake Glenn Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have had no trouble with UP -STABLE running on a dual PPro system,
but I'm getting an early panic in UP and SMP -CURRENT on the same
system. I will post details to current@ soon if I can't figure out
the problem.
The problem on -STABLE is
On 02-May-2002 Yuri Victorovich wrote:
I am running FreeBSD 5.0 on Alpha 7310.
Apache httpd was running fine for a week and today
after I've added
mod_php4 I got after 30 min a condition when all
httpd's were reported
by top as *Giant not responding to TCP requests and
killall -9 httpd
Ok, so they are all blocked. Does the machine
respond to
other interrupts ok? I.e., can you ssh into the
machine
and what not? Or is the machine basically hung?
Everything else was just fine. Actually I was
runnning top through ssh.
In /var/log/messages also nothing relevant.
Yuri.
Which mobo/chipset ?
* Lamont Granquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020323 02:14]:
I just cvsupped about an hour ago, built world and built a kernel that was
GENERIC with 486/586 turned off and SMP and IOAPIC turned on. It crashed
while trying to mount root. Apologies for mistakes in the
Of course that should be an A7M266D...
(its friday, my brain is fried and i think i need to take a sauna...)
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Lamont Granquist wrote:
GENERIC works, so this looks like an SMP problem.
Its happening right after the CPU initializes. This is probably the first
SMP code
GENERIC works, so this looks like an SMP problem.
Its happening right after the CPU initializes. This is probably the first
SMP code the machine runs? Is hardware incompatibility a good guess? I
would have expected that if someone broke ffs_mountfs() that someone else
would have noticed by
--- Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a box, I've enabled SMP, and APIC, disabled
WITNESS and
INVARIANTS. It hangs after probing scsi right
before
mountroot. It looks like something may be botched
with interrupts:
hi,
happy new year 2002!,
APIC_IO: Testing 8254
Pete Carah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I need an NMI button (or does that work?)
You can generate NMIs by shortening the first two pins of
an ISA slot with a screwdriver (the two pins close to the
back where the ISA slot covers are). This can also be done
with PCI slots, if that board
:I have a system using a fairly new Supermicro MB, with 2 P3-1GHZ, and 512mb
:ram. Running stable works fine at least a day or so with LOTS of activity.
:Running current it hangs (with no output of any kind, and apparently all
:interrupts disabled) so DDB does me no good... This requires a
Julian Elischer wrote:
If we are not going to use separate VM mapping s to keep the per-cpu
information separate any more, then can we remove the support for it from
the kernel?
No, this is still very much used. I really want to fix this and will try
and take a shot over the weekend.
Patrick Hartling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
} John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
}
} }
} } On 25-Oct-00 Chuck Robey wrote:
} } I'm having rather extreme problems with stability on my dual PIII
} } setup. I know this is to be expected, but it's gotten so extreme on my
} } system, I can't
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
}
} On 25-Oct-00 Chuck Robey wrote:
} I'm having rather extreme problems with stability on my dual PIII
} setup. I know this is to be expected, but it's gotten so extreme on my
} system, I can't spend more than a few minutes before it locks up.
}
}
Chuck Robey writes:
I'm having rather extreme problems with stability on my dual PIII
setup. I know this is to be expected, but it's gotten so extreme on my
system, I can't spend more than a few minutes before it locks up.
Is there any chance that I could make things better by using a
On 25-Oct-00 Chuck Robey wrote:
I'm having rather extreme problems with stability on my dual PIII
setup. I know this is to be expected, but it's gotten so extreme on my
system, I can't spend more than a few minutes before it locks up.
Is there any chance that I could make things better by
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, John Baldwin wrote:
On 25-Oct-00 Chuck Robey wrote:
I'm having rather extreme problems with stability on my dual PIII
setup. I know this is to be expected, but it's gotten so extreme on my
system, I can't spend more than a few minutes before it locks up.
Is
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Mike Meyer wrote:
Chuck Robey writes:
I'm having rather extreme problems with stability on my dual PIII
setup. I know this is to be expected, but it's gotten so extreme on my
system, I can't spend more than a few minutes before it locks up.
Is there any chance
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 03:11:27AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
I thought one of the SMP developers announced that it was now committed,
yet I haven't seen any commit messages for it ... I'm running the newest
patch, so am waiting for the commit messages before I actually do my next
At 6 Sep 2000 18:35:17 -0700,
Jason Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you run into issues that appear related to the SMP changes, and they
aren't listed as known issues, please bring them up on the -smp or -current
mailing list.
this breaks building GENERIC kernel.
cc -c -O -pipe -Wall
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Jason Evans wrote:
A static tag, named PRE_SMPNG, was created at 18:00 PDT. The SMP patches
have now been committed.
Is it safe to follow src-sys from PRE_SMPNG and everything else as
-current?
--
_ __ ___ ___ ___ ___
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 03:31:06PM -0400, Wesley Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Jason Evans wrote:
A static tag, named PRE_SMPNG, was created at 18:00 PDT. The SMP patches
have now been committed.
Is it safe to follow src-sys from PRE_SMPNG and everything else as
-current?
top and
Jason Evans wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 03:31:06PM -0400, Wesley Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Jason Evans wrote:
A static tag, named PRE_SMPNG, was created at 18:00 PDT. The SMP patches
have now been committed.
Is it safe to follow src-sys from PRE_SMPNG and everything
On Thursday, 7 September 2000 at 3:11:27 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
I thought one of the SMP developers announced that it was now committed,
yet I haven't seen any commit messages for it ... I'm running the newest
patch, so am waiting for the commit messages before I actually do my
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Thursday, 7 September 2000 at 3:11:27 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
I thought one of the SMP developers announced that it was now committed,
yet I haven't seen any commit messages for it ... I'm running the newest
patch, so am waiting for the
On Thursday, 7 September 2000 at 20:06:20 +0900, Motomichi Matsuzaki wrote:
At 6 Sep 2000 18:35:17 -0700,
Jason Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you run into issues that appear related to the SMP changes, and they
aren't listed as known issues, please bring them up on the -smp or -current
Brad Knowles wrote:
At 7:36 PM + 2000/8/28, Alex Zepeda wrote:
Perhaps in a rush to get started, I've compiled and
been using a SMP kernel even before the second processor arrives. This
has worked fine, however I've gotten some rather weird hangs and
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 03:46:20PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
Personally, I'm astonished that an SMP kernel will actually boot
and run on a uniprocessor machine.
Grr, still getting used to mutt, and I didn't reply to the list. Yes, I'm
using an SMP board, and waiting on the arrival of
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 09:41:57AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what
the outcome of the meeting was ?
I'm at USENIX right now, so I'm a bit strapped for time to work on this.
Still, I plan to email a brief summary of the meeting
On Tuesday, 20 June 2000 at 9:41:57 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what
the outcome of the meeting was ?
I'm writing up a detailed trip report for my company. I can't see why
I shouldn't forward it to the SMP list as well, but I
On Tuesday, 20 June 2000 at 11:16:24 +0200, Martin Cracauer wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what
the outcome of the meeting was ?
Who was there, anyway?
From my trip report. This can hardly be confidential.
Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what
the outcome of the meeting was ?
Can we get to see the slides ?
Audio ?
Video ?
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what
the outcome of the meeting was ?
Who was there, anyway?
Martin
--
%
Martin Cracauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martin Cracauer wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what
the outcome of the meeting was ?
Who was there, anyway?
Yeah, those of us who couldn't make it are kinda (to say the least)
interested in what was
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
: Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what
: the outcome of the meeting was ?
:
: Can we get to see the slides ?
:
: Audio ?
:
: Video ?
I know that I'd love to see this. Steve Passe also is interested.
Warner
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
I know that I'd love to see this. Steve Passe also is interested.
I heard that Greg Lehey was videotaping (he's currently at usenix) and
someone else had slides they were going to make available.
Kris
--
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what
the outcome of the meeting was ?
I believe that Jason Evans already sent a message summarizing the
meeting, and Matt Dillon's webpage gives a pretty good summary of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan Lemon writes:
In article local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Am I the only person who miss a brief document which tells what
the outcome of the meeting was ?
I believe that Jason Evans already sent a message summarizing the
meeting, and
:On this page, you say:
:
: The algorithms described on this page are essentially the BSDI algorithms
: plus accomodations we disussed at the Yahoo SMP meeting. However, I did
: not do a direct port. I did a from-scratch rewrite because, simply put,
: it was easier for me. The variables are
Hi,
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Mitsuru IWASAKI wrote:
We're having this problem for long time (from the old 4.0-CURRENT
days), but Mr. SUMITANI discovered a bug and fixed it.
The problem was that we got worng gdt pointer for the current cpu,
then panic...
The followings is a patch to fix
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 02:06:15AM +0900, Mitsuru IWASAKI wrote:
We're having this problem for long time (from the old 4.0-CURRENT
days), but Mr. SUMITANI discovered a bug and fixed it.
The problem was that we got worng gdt pointer for the current cpu,
then panic...
The followings is a
Please test this and I'll commit MFC this if we have no problem with
this fix.
I don't have an SMP + APM system around at the moment, but the
fix does look correct to me, go ahead and commit it. Thanks for
tracking this down!
Thank you for reviewing this. I'm going to comit tomorrow
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Mitsuru IWASAKI wrote:
We're having this problem for long time (from the old 4.0-CURRENT
days), but Mr. SUMITANI discovered a bug and fixed it.
The problem was that we got worng gdt pointer for the current cpu,
then panic...
The followings is a patch to fix the problem.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Jake Burkholder wrote:
...snip...
Its nice to see someone actually using kobj so soon. There is a possible
performance problem though - kobj method calls are roughly 20% slower than
direct function calls. Having said that, this isn't that slow - I timed a
method
...snip...
Its nice to see someone actually using kobj so soon. There is a possible
performance problem though - kobj method calls are roughly 20% slower than
direct function calls. Having said that, this isn't that slow - I timed a
method call to a two argument function at ~40ns on a
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
Try buildworld on one machine and installworld on all of your production
boxes.. installworld only takes 10-20 minutes to run on my crappy IDE
disks.
Yes, that's what I'm doing now - so far the best method. But still
requires having N+1 boxes
On 26-Apr-00 Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
Yes, that's what I'm doing now - so far the best method. But still
requires having N+1 boxes (which is not a concern for me, but for someone
having e.g. 2 boxes in production this represents 1/3 increment), plus
topology allowing for using NFS mounts.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 09:33:46AM +0200, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
Try buildworld on one machine and installworld on all of your production
boxes.. installworld only takes 10-20 minutes to run on my crappy IDE
disks.
Yes, that's what I'm doing now - so far the best method. But still
1 - 100 of 258 matches
Mail list logo
