Re: CPUs and processes not evenly assigned?!

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 08:14:42PM +0100, Hubert Feyrer wrote: > > > Am 22.12.2016 um 11:09 schrieb Michael van Elst : > >> What are we waiting for here, how should we go on? > >> Would you want to commit the latest patch and allow it get more > >> wide-spread testing in

Re: CPUs and processes not evenly assigned?!

Do a call for testing on developers@. -- Cryo:William J. Coldwell ARIN:WC25/AS7769 PGP:0xF97CC215/0x5E9944455 Warped, Inc. warped.com Founder/CTO 661-WARPED1 @warped @deadjournal NetBSD netbsd.org/pkgsrc.org President,Project Security,Social Media "Put on 3D glasses, otherwise you only see in

Re: vrele vs. syncer deadlock

> On 11 Dec 2016, at 21:01, David Holland wrote: > > On a low-memory machine Nick ran into the following deadlock: > > (a) rename -> vrele on child -> inactive -> truncate -> getblk -> > no memory in buffer pool -> wait for syncer This prediction seems wrong.

Re: CPUs and processes not evenly assigned?!

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 10:52:38AM +0100, Hubert Feyrer wrote: > Hi, > > What are we waiting for here, how should we go on? > Would you want to commit the latest patch and allow it get more wide-spread > testing in -current? anyone who has time to _test_ it? Would be nice if someone looks at

Re: CPUs and processes not evenly assigned?!

Hi, > Am 26.11.2016 um 11:09 schrieb Hubert Feyrer : > I see a lot of ground for more research here, determining right amount of > bits and A and B. To sum up our options at this point: > > a) leave the situation as-is and wait for research to get a perfect formula > b) commit