Re: uvm_meter: remove wakeup of proc0

2023-07-31 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 03:00:59PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 11:16:14AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > proc0 aka the swapper does not do anything. So there is no need to wake it > > up. Now the problem is that last time this was tried some inteldrm systems > > did

Re: uvm_meter: remove wakeup of proc0

2023-07-31 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 09:49:30PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:03:41PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > > This is the culprit: > > > > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(long timeout) > > { > > tsleep(curproc, PWAIT, "schtou", timeout); > > return 0; >

pf(4) may cause relayd(8) to abort

2023-07-31 Thread Alexandr Nedvedicky
Hello, the issue has been reported by Gianni Kapetanakis month ago [1]. It took several emails to figure out relayd(8) exists after hosts got disabled by 'relayctl host dis ...' The thing is that relayd(8) relies on pf(4) to create persistent tables (PFR_TFLAG_PERSIST) as relayd requests that:

Re: uvm_meter: remove wakeup of proc0

2023-07-31 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:04:44PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 09:49:30PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:03:41PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > > > This is the culprit: > > > > > > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(long timeout) > > > { > >

Re: uvm_meter: remove wakeup of proc0

2023-07-31 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:03:41PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > This is the culprit: > > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(long timeout) > { > tsleep(curproc, PWAIT, "schtou", timeout); > return 0; > } > Please give this a try. I think on initialization

Re: ualarm.3: cleanup, rewrites

2023-07-31 Thread Todd C . Miller
On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 20:20:31 -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote: > This patch drags ualarm.3 over to where alarm.3 is. I think it reads > better and the wording is truer to what the function actually does. > In particular, ualarm(3) does not block or "wait": the alarm is > scheduled for asynchronous

Re: uvm_meter: remove wakeup of proc0

2023-07-31 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
This is the culprit: schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(long timeout) { tsleep(curproc, PWAIT, "schtou", timeout); return 0; }

Re: uvm_meter: remove wakeup of proc0

2023-07-31 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:03:41PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > This is the culprit: > > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(long timeout) > { > tsleep(curproc, PWAIT, "schtou", timeout); > return 0; > } Not really. The problem is lower in intel_dp_wait_source_oui(). Which

Re: uvm_meter: remove wakeup of proc0

2023-07-31 Thread Mikhail
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:04:44PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 09:49:30PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:03:41PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > > > This is the culprit: > > > > > > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(long timeout) > > > { > >

Re: uvm_meter: remove wakeup of proc0

2023-07-31 Thread Vitaliy Makkoveev
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 09:49:30PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:03:41PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > > This is the culprit: > > > > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(long timeout) > > { > > tsleep(curproc, PWAIT, "schtou", timeout); > > return 0; >

Re: uvm_meter: remove wakeup of proc0

2023-07-31 Thread Chris Waddey
The jiffies patch plus the patch in uvm_meter worked for me. It even booted a little faster than normal. On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:04:44PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 09:49:30PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:03:41PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev

Re: uvm_meter: remove wakeup of proc0

2023-07-31 Thread Scott Cheloha
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:04:44PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 09:49:30PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:03:41PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote: > > > This is the culprit: > > > > > > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(long timeout) > > > { > >

rpki-client: check CMS versions

2023-07-31 Thread Theo Buehler
Now that we have accessors for the SignedData and SignerInfo version in libcrypto, let's put them to their intended use. For portable I have made a PR to provide compat shims. Index: cms.c === RCS file:

Re: axppmic(4): axp313a support

2023-07-31 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 22:12:35 +0900 > From: SASANO Takayoshi > > Hi, > > Mango Pi MQ-Quad and OrangePi Zero3 has X-Power AXP313A PMIC. > > Here is a diff, but AXP313A's dcdc1 is not fully supported. > > dcdc1 has three voltage ranges: > 0.5-1.2V, 10mV/step (71 steps) >

Re: uvm_meter: remove wakeup of proc0

2023-07-31 Thread Chris Waddey
On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 11:16:14AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > proc0 aka the swapper does not do anything. So there is no need to wake it > up. Now the problem is that last time this was tried some inteldrm systems > did hang during bootup because the drm code unexpectedly depended on this >

Re: uvm_loadav: don't recompute schedstate_percpu.spc_nrun

2023-07-31 Thread Scott Cheloha
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 07:36:41PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote: > claudio@ notes that uvm_loadav() pointlessly walks the allproc list to > recompute schedstate_percpu.spn_nrun for each CPU. > > We can just use the value instead of recomputing it. Whoops, off-by-one. The current load averaging

axppmic(4): axp313a support

2023-07-31 Thread SASANO Takayoshi
Hi, Mango Pi MQ-Quad and OrangePi Zero3 has X-Power AXP313A PMIC. Here is a diff, but AXP313A's dcdc1 is not fully supported. dcdc1 has three voltage ranges: 0.5-1.2V, 10mV/step (71 steps) 1.22-1.54V 20mV/step (17 steps) 1.6-3.4V 100mV/step (19 steps) *not supported this