Re: [RFC][CFT] GEOM direct dispatch and fine-grained CAM locking

2013-10-07 Thread John Baldwin
On Sunday, October 06, 2013 3:30:42 am Alexander Motin wrote: On 02.10.2013 20:30, John Baldwin wrote: On Saturday, September 07, 2013 2:32:45 am Alexander Motin wrote: On 07.09.2013 02:02, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 11:29:11AM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote: On

Re: UFS related panic (daily - find)

2013-10-07 Thread John Baldwin
On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:40:02 pm rank1see...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, here is another one, same case, just this time under 9.1-RELEASE-p7 == Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode fault virtual address = 0x25

Re: [RFC][CFT] GEOM direct dispatch and fine-grained CAM locking

2013-10-07 Thread Alexander Motin
On 07.10.2013 19:09, John Baldwin wrote: On Sunday, October 06, 2013 3:30:42 am Alexander Motin wrote: On 02.10.2013 20:30, John Baldwin wrote: On Saturday, September 07, 2013 2:32:45 am Alexander Motin wrote: On 07.09.2013 02:02, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 11:29:11AM

Re: Call fo comments - raising vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage?

2013-10-07 Thread Davide Italiano
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote: Hi, Prodded by davide@, I'd like to collect opinions about raising the vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage sysctl from 5 to 60, committed at: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/254986 What it does: Used in lowmem handler

Re: Call fo comments - raising vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage?

2013-10-07 Thread Davide Italiano
What would perhaps be better than a hardcoded reclaim age would be to use an LRU-type approach and perhaps set a target percent to reclaim. That is, suppose you were to reclaim the oldest 10% of hashes on each lowmem call (and make the '10%' the tunable value). Then you will always make some

Re: UFS related panic (daily - find)

2013-10-07 Thread rank1seeker
On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:40:02 pm rank1see...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, here is another one, same case, just this time under 9.1-RELEASE-p7 == Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode fault virtual address =

geli still broken on latest 9.* from svn

2013-10-07 Thread Wojciech Puchar
is it planned to fix or should i just treat some non latest 9.* release as the last non-broken one, and just apply security fixes manually? ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To

patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?

2013-10-07 Thread Eitan Adler
patch(1) explicitly tries to use RCS (and SCCS) in certain cases. Are we okay with a base system utility that behaves differently depending on whether a port is installed? Should the relevant code be removed from patch(1)? See head/usr.bin/patch/inp.c lines 166 to 240 for details. -- Eitan

Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?

2013-10-07 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message caf6rxgni6kw6qtlmwwqdc2suqp+wa5-ptqwgsbtpa1-x_vz...@mail.gmail.com , Eitan Adler writes: patch(1) explicitly tries to use RCS (and SCCS) in certain cases. Are we okay with a base system utility that behaves differently depending on whether a port is installed? Should the relevant code