On 2017-Mar-21, at 7:21 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
> On 2017-Mar-18, at 9:10 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2017-Mar-18, at 5:53 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
>>
>>> A new, significant discovery follows. . .
>>>
>>> While checking out use of procstat -v I ran
>>> into the following common
On 2017-Mar-18, at 9:10 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
>
> On 2017-Mar-18, at 5:53 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
>
>> A new, significant discovery follows. . .
>>
>> While checking out use of procstat -v I ran
>> into the following common property for the 3
>>
On 2017-Mar-18, at 5:53 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
> A new, significant discovery follows. . .
>
> While checking out use of procstat -v I ran
> into the following common property for the 3
> programs that I looked at:
>
> A) My small test program that fails for
> a
A new, significant discovery follows. . .
While checking out use of procstat -v I ran
into the following common property for the 3
programs that I looked at:
A) My small test program that fails for
a dynamically allocated space.
B) sh reporting Failed assertion: "tsd_booted".
C) su
[Summary: I've now tested on a rpi3 in addition to a
pine64+ 2GB. Both contexts show the problem.]
On 2017-Mar-16, at 2:07 AM, Mark Millard wrote:
> On 2017-Mar-15, at 11:07 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
>
>> Mark Millard wrote:
>>
>>> [Something strange happened to the automatic CC: fill-in for
Mark Millard wrote:
> [Something strange happened to the automatic CC: fill-in for my original
> reply. Also I should have mentioned that for my test program if a
> variant is made that does not fork the swapping works fine.]
>
> On 2017-Mar-15, at 9:37 AM, Mark Millard wrote:
>
> > On
On 2017-Mar-15, at 11:07 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
> Mark Millard wrote:
>
>> [Something strange happened to the automatic CC: fill-in for my original
>> reply. Also I should have mentioned that for my test program if a
>> variant is made that does not fork the swapping works fine.]
>>
>> On
[Something strange happened to the automatic CC: fill-in for my original
reply. Also I should have mentioned that for my test program if a
variant is made that does not fork the swapping works fine.]
On 2017-Mar-15, at 9:37 AM, Mark Millard wrote:
> On 2017-Mar-15, at 6:15 AM, Scott Bennett
A single Byte access to a 4K Byte aligned region between
the fork and wait/sleep/swap-out prevents that specific
4K Byte region from having the (bad) zeros.
Sounds like a page sized unit of behavior to me.
Details follow.
On 2017-Mar-14, at 3:28 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
>
On 2017-Mar-14, at 4:44 PM, Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:28:53PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
>> [test_check() between the fork and the wait/sleep prevents the
>> failure from occurring. Even a small access to the memory at
>> that stage prevents the
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:28:53PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> [test_check() between the fork and the wait/sleep prevents the
> failure from occurring. Even a small access to the memory at
> that stage prevents the failure. Details follow.]
Maybe a stupid question, since you might have written
[test_check() between the fork and the wait/sleep prevents the
failure from occurring. Even a small access to the memory at
that stage prevents the failure. Details follow.]
On 2017-Mar-14, at 11:07 AM, Mark Millard wrote:
> [This is just a correction to the subject-line
12 matches
Mail list logo