Re: Memory leak on thread removal
On 2009-05-15 14:48, Marius Nünnerich wrote: Anybody knows good tools how to investigate this? Valgrind? ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: WPA associating with unknown SSID
On 2008-09-03 14:31, Matthias Apitz wrote: from time to time at home I encounter that it is associating with an unknown AP of my neighbourhood: how this is possible and how can I prevent this? Try to get wpa_supplicant log. Also you are welcome to write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail list about this problem (but specify there version of supplicant). Regards, Andriy ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FreeBSD-Announce] New Logo
On Tuesday 01 November 2005 18:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4. I sure ain't going to wear a T-shirt with that on it. sad story - i'm too... ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hot path optimizations in uma_zalloc() uma_zfree()
I have doubts it will works:
- item = bucket-ub_bucket[--bucket-ub_cnt];
-1bbe: 66 ff 49 08 decw 0x8(%ecx)
-1bc2: 0f bf 41 08 movswl 0x8(%ecx),%eax
-1bc6: 8b 44 81 14 mov0x14(%ecx,%eax,4),%eax
-1bca: 89 45 f0 mov%eax,0xfff0(%ebp)
+ item = *(--bucket-ub_last);
+1bbe: 8b 51 0c mov0xc(%ecx),%edx
+1bc1: 8d 42 fc lea0xfffc(%edx),%eax
+1bc4: 89 41 0c mov%eax,0xc(%ecx)
+1bc7: 8b 52 fc mov0xfffc(%edx),%edx
+1bca: 89 55 f0 mov%edx,0xfff0(%ebp)
here even more refereces to memory in your variant.
- bucket-ub_bucket[bucket-ub_cnt++] = item;
-22b9: 0f bf c2 movswl %dx,%eax
-22bc: 8b 4d 0c mov0xc(%ebp),%ecx
-22bf: 89 4c 83 14 mov%ecx,0x14(%ebx,%eax,4)
-22c3: 8d 42 01 lea0x1(%edx),%eax
-22c6: 66 89 43 08 mov%ax,0x8(%ebx)
+ *(bucket-ub_last++) = item;
+22b9: 8b 43 0c mov0xc(%ebx),%eax
+22bc: 8b 55 0c mov0xc(%ebp),%edx
+22bf: 89 10 mov%edx,(%eax)
+22c1: 83 43 0c 04 addl $0x4,0xc(%ebx)
- Original Message -
From: Nikos Ntarmos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: hot path optimizations in uma_zalloc() uma_zfree()
Hi there.
I wouldn't have gone into this if ant hadn't produced that 10% figure
for the speed improvement with simply reordering of increments and
dereferences (although jhb@ reported the speed-up he noticed was much
less than that).
I attach* a patch that: (i) incorporates ant's exchange of uc_freebucket
for uc_allocbucket, and (ii) throws away the uma_bucket.ub_cnt counter
of free bucket entries, in favor of a pointer -- uma_bucket.ub_last --
to the last free bucket entry. If a simple reordering is capable of
producing a 10% improvement, this change should do much better, since it
saves the 'add-' in the 'add-and-dereference' process of using arrays
and counters. The semantics of the pointer closely follow those of the
ub_cnt counter: ub_last - ub_bucket should equal the old value of
ub_cnt.
I grep'ed through the whole source repository and the uses of
uma_bucket.ub_cnt seem confined within sys/vm/uma_core.c, so this change
must be quite self-contained -- i.e. the change in the fields of
uma_bucket doesn't seem to affect any other part of the system. One
could argue that it may make the code a bit less readable, but it only
affects uma_core.c, so it may be worth the inconvenience.
I don't have a FreeBSD box around any more, so I can't test this patch.
Heck, I can't either check it for syntax errors and such, so don't throw
things at me if this doesn't even compile. Can somebody with the time
and resources give it a try?
\n\n
* Also online at http://noth.ceid.upatras.gr/Misc/uma_bucket.diff
to avoid being bitten by mailers auto{wrapp,indent}ing the diff
content.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hot path optimizations in uma_zalloc() uma_zfree()
I ran ministat against your tests with 1000 sockets loop and there isn't a lot of difference in the user times: it was not supposed to be (the difference in the user times) ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hot path optimizations in uma_zalloc() uma_zfree()
On Thursday 30 June 2005 10:35 am, Andriy Tkachuk wrote: I just checked the object code - you right, it almost the same: - bucket-ub_bucket[bucket-ub_cnt] = item; -22b9: 0f bf 43 08 movswl 0x8(%ebx),%eax -22bd: 8b 4d 0c mov0xc(%ebp),%ecx -22c0: 89 4c 83 0c mov%ecx,0xc(%ebx,%eax,4) - bucket-ub_cnt++; -22c4: 8d 42 01 lea0x1(%edx),%eax -22c7: 66 89 43 08 mov%ax,0x8(%ebx) + bucket-ub_bucket[bucket-ub_cnt++] = item; +22b9: 0f bf c2 movswl %dx,%eax +22bc: 8b 4d 0c mov0xc(%ebp),%ecx +22bf: 89 4c 83 0c mov%ecx,0xc(%ebx,%eax,4) +22c3: 8d 42 01 lea0x1(%edx),%eax +22c6: 66 89 43 08 mov%ax,0x8(%ebx) but still there is some minor difference in first line. I'm not familiar with assembler, can somebody explain whether this difference is assential or not? It just uses the stored value of the variable in %dx instead of loading it from memory at 0x8(%ebx). When I compiled a simple test program here locally I got identical object code though. Probaly this is the reason of throughput increasing. I want to note, that all tests where made on my home workstation. And each new test was made with new kernel just after rebooting in ttyv withoud X-server. I think the noise was not assential. Ministats against second third optimization showed this results: (for different number of sockets created destroyed in one iteration) /usr/src/tools/tools/ministat/ministat -c 99.5 sockloop_stat2_o1_sys_1000 sockloop_stat2_o2_sys_1000 x sockloop_stat2_o1_sys_1000 + sockloop_stat2_o2_sys_1000 +--+ |+ + + x x x| ||__A_||___M__A__| | +--+ N Min MaxMedian AvgStddev x 3 2.373 2.403 2.381 2.3856667 0.015534907 + 3 2.298 2.34 2.32 2.319 0.021007935 No difference proven at 99.5% confidence /usr/src/tools/tools/ministat/ministat -c 99.5 sockloop_stat2_o1_sys_100 sockloop_stat2_o2_sys_100 x sockloop_stat2_o1_sys_100 + sockloop_stat2_o2_sys_100 +--+ |+ + + xxx | | |___A__M___| |___AM_|| +--+ N Min MaxMedian AvgStddev x 3 2.158 2.182 2.174 2.171 0.012220202 + 3 2.062 2.126 2.102 2.097 0.032331615 No difference proven at 99.5% confidence /usr/src/tools/tools/ministat/ministat -c 99.5 sockloop_stat2_o1_sys_10 sockloop_stat2_o2_sys_10 x sockloop_stat2_o1_sys_10 + sockloop_stat2_o2_sys_10 +--+ | + | | + + x xx | ||_M_A| |A___M___|| +--+ N Min MaxMedian AvgStddev x 3 1.754 1.777 1.776 1.769 0.013 + 3 1.672 1.684 1.673 1.676 0.0066583281 Difference at 99.5% confidence -0.0926667 +/- 0.060488 -5.23836% +/- 3.41934% (Student's t, pooled s = 0.010328) /usr/src/tools/tools/ministat/ministat -c 99.5 sockloop_stat2_o1_sys_1 sockloop_stat2_o2_sys_1 x sockloop_stat2_o1_sys_1 + sockloop_stat2_o2_sys_1 +--+ |+ + +x x x| ||AM___| |M_A___| | +--+ N Min MaxMedian AvgStddev x 3 1.938 1.993 1.953 1.961 0.028431204 + 3 1.722 1.785 1.759 1.755 0.031659648 Difference at 99.5% confidence -0.206 +/- 0.176222 -10.5031% +/- 8.98479% (Student's t, pooled s = 0.0300888) and for default confidence (95%) this results: /usr/src/tools/tools/ministat/ministat sockloop_stat2_o1_sys_1000 sockloop_stat2_o2_sys_1000 x sockloop_stat2_o1_sys_1000 + sockloop_stat2_o2_sys_1000
Re: hot path optimizations in uma_zalloc() uma_zfree()
if one will decide to commit first optimization (about buckets), then there must some adjustments be made also regarding correct statistics gathering. It seems that all is fine with statistics, i mistook. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hot path optimizations in uma_zalloc() uma_zfree()
I just checked the object code - you right, it almost the same: - bucket-ub_bucket[bucket-ub_cnt] = item; -22b9: 0f bf 43 08 movswl 0x8(%ebx),%eax -22bd: 8b 4d 0c mov0xc(%ebp),%ecx -22c0: 89 4c 83 0c mov%ecx,0xc(%ebx,%eax,4) - bucket-ub_cnt++; -22c4: 8d 42 01 lea0x1(%edx),%eax -22c7: 66 89 43 08 mov%ax,0x8(%ebx) + bucket-ub_bucket[bucket-ub_cnt++] = item; +22b9: 0f bf c2 movswl %dx,%eax +22bc: 8b 4d 0c mov0xc(%ebp),%ecx +22bf: 89 4c 83 0c mov%ecx,0xc(%ebx,%eax,4) +22c3: 8d 42 01 lea0x1(%edx),%eax +22c6: 66 89 43 08 mov%ax,0x8(%ebx) but still there is some minor difference in first line. I'm not familiar with assembler, can somebody explain whether this difference is assential or not? in decrementation there is no difference at all: - bucket-ub_cnt--; + item = bucket-ub_bucket[--bucket-ub_cnt]; 1bbe: 66 ff 49 08 decw 0x8(%ecx) - item = bucket-ub_bucket[bucket-ub_cnt]; 1bc2: 0f bf 41 08 movswl 0x8(%ecx),%eax 1bc6: 8b 44 81 0c mov0xc(%ecx,%eax,4),%eax 1bca: 89 45 f0mov%eax,0xfff0(%ebp) - Original Message - From: Max Laier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: ant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:15 PM Subject: Re: hot path optimizations in uma_zalloc() uma_zfree() Another optimization is very trivial, for example: - bucket-ub_cnt--; - item = bucket-ub_bucket[bucket-ub_cnt]; + item = bucket-ub_bucket[--bucket-ub_cnt]; (see the patch) Might be me, but this doesn't change the generated object code at all (modulo the changed __line__ in debugging). ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: vmstat reporting incorrect cpu usage
On Saturday 04 June 2005 17:58, Matt Emmerton wrote: The first line is the average since the system was last booted; all other lines are instantaneous. yeap. from man page: -c Repeat the display count times. The first display is for the time since a reboot and each subsequent report is for the time period since the last display. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ext2 drives under 5.3 not umounting on reboots
I've had the same problem on 5.3. now on my FreeBSD 5.4-RC2 #0: Fri Apr 15 11:28:48 EEST 2005 i386 it seems that problem gone. On Sunday 17 April 2005 00:07, c0ldbyte wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, M. Parsons wrote: I have a ext2 linux partition mounted under /linux via the fstab line: /dev/ad2s1 /linux ext2fs rw 1 2 It will automount on bootup, but if I do a reboot or shutdown -h now, it doesnt get umounted properly. In fact, if this /linux is mounted, then /, /usr, /var, and /tmp (all seperate ufs slices on another hard drive) also get tainted during a reboot. And on the next startup I get the good ole: WARNING: /usr was not properly dismounted, leaving me to fsck the drives in single mode (which sucks, as the fbsd machine is a headless NAT machine). Running fsck in single mode does fix everything. So whats going on here? reboot aint properly umounting partitions, and fsck doesnt seem to be properly running during bootup if it detects tainted filesystems. Any ideas? Freebsd 5.3 SMP kernel. Try this line: /dev/ad2s1 /linux ext2fs rw 0 0 But remember the ext2 code has been buggy for a while and is not allways a good choice to try and do writes on it. Might be a better choice to change rw to ro and to also check that drive/partition for errors with its original fsck to fix any errors if there is any then it will most likely mount properly and umount properly. Best of luck, --c0ldbyte ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: contributing to fbsd
If you're interested, I can send you a copy of the code... It's a bare implementation with some basic regression tests performed It doesn't layer ontop of kmem_cache though... Yes, John. Send me please. Thank you, Andriy. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: contributing to fbsd
(exept patching [2005/01/26] threads/76690threads fork hang in child for (-lc_r -lthr) in wich anyone doesn't interesting as it appeared )) PRs can get lost or misfiled... it's just human nature. threads PRs are broadcasted every moth AFAIN ) ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sched_ule, runqueues, priority, and O(1) sheduling question
Hi folks. I wander how O(1) sheduling works in ULE. In ule.pdf Jeff wrote: Threads are picked from the current queue in priority order until the current queue is empty. As far as I understand the algorithm is O(n) where n - number of READY TO RUN processes, not all processes isn't it? thanks, Andriy. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sched_ule, runqueues, priority, and O(1) sheduling question
Hi folks. I wander how O(1) sheduling works in ULE. In ule.pdf Jeff wrote: Threads are picked from the current queue in priority order until the current queue is empty. As far as I understand the algorithm is O(n) where n - number of READY TO RUN processes, not all processes isn't it? thanks, Andriy. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sched_ule, runqueues, priority, and O(1) sheduling question
I haven't looked at it, but could it just be referring to retrieving a thread from the queue. Just pulling something off a queue is a O(1) operation. The order it places things in the queue probably is not. :) You rihgt - just pulling something off a queue is a O(1) operation, but before pulling algorithm is finding the thread with highest priority, with it have to pull - this is not the O(1) operation. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: giving up on 1 buffers error messsage
It is interesting why threre is no answer for this question so long time, regardless that it was posted 2 times :) For me it is also interesting to get the answer for this question since from time to time i also confused by such msgs on shutdown. syncing disks... 54 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 giving up on 1 buffers Hi, I am referring to the message when the code in kern_shutdown.c in bsd 4.10 is called at the time of boot() system call My understanding is that this message tells us that 1 buffer from the buffer cache was not successfully flushed to disk, since the last call to sync(). Is that right? In that case what happens to this buffer? Is it discarded and assume that fsck will fix this on reboot? Since the syncer process runs periodically, can this error message be avoided if we wait long enough to guarantee flushing to disk (I have tried with DELAYS upto 30 seconds but I still get the error sometimes). I am actually trying to use this same code at a different point in time (not during shutdown, but to take a checkpoint), so I am not sure if that contributes to this error message? ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Remote upgrade of 4.X-5.3-Stable
Gentlemen, is this theme for this list? ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pthreads dynamic memory in fbsd vs. the same in linux
Hi folks. I noticed the strange stick of pthreads (amount ~ 500) when allocating dynamic memory by malloc or new in my system: uname -a FreeBSD ant.emict.com 5.3-STABLE FreeBSD 5.3-STABLE #0: Wed Feb 9 17:30:11 EET 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/lin/fbsd_obj/usr/src/sys/ANT i386 It's interesting that the same program behaves differently when it is compiled in linux and run on my fbsd machine in linux_base-7.1_7 . ldd test2-linux test2-linux: libpthread.so.0 = /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x28065000) libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3 = /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3 (0x2807c000) libm.so.6 = /lib/libm.so.6 (0x280bf000) libc.so.6 = /lib/libc.so.6 (0x280e1000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 = /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x2804c000) ldd a.out a.out: libpthread.so.1 = /usr/lib/libpthread.so.1 (0x28075000) libstdc++.so.4 = /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.4 (0x28099000) libm.so.3 = /lib/libm.so.3 (0x2816b000) libc.so.5 = /lib/libc.so.5 (0x28184000) Each thread allocates the amount of memory by 10 bytes in loop. The number of iterations is specified in cmdline arg. The program prints the time each thread is spent allocating memory in loop. Let's look on results. ./a.out n 1000 # 1000 iterations of new operator. Every new allocates 10bytes. thread 0 created thread 1 created thread 2 created thread 3 created thread 4 created ... thread 497 created thread 498 created thread 499 created 0.001114 0.001022 0.001021 0.001011 0.001014 0.001010 0.001013 0.001050 0.001035 0.001011 0.001013 0.001010 0.001013 0.001010 0.001029 0.001075 0.001053 0.001011 0.001014 0.001011 0.001030 0.001010 0.001015 0.001042 0.001019 0.001011 0.001014 0.001012 0.001013 0.001010 0.001014 0.361604 3.225090 3.225458 3.225696 3.225925 3.226152 3.226380 3.226608 3.226833 3.227062 3.227290 3.227517 3.227744 3.227972 3.228202 3.228451 3.228681 3.228912 3.229140 3.229367 The same, but in linux_base-7.1_7 : ./test2-linux n 1000 thread 0 created thread 1 created ... thread 498 created thread 499 created 0.000467 0.000403 0.000402 ... 0.000391 0.000391 0.000395 ... 0.000395 0.010564 0.000398 0.000394 The program source is attached. In linux program is compiled by $ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs gcc version 2.96 2731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-98) in fbsd: gcc -v Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.2 [FreeBSD] 20040728 ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pthreads dynamic memory in fbsd vs. the same in linux
i sent the mail with attachement. anyway, the code:
(probably the better list would be -threads. sorry folks for flame.
i subscribed today to -threads, so please reply to it if no mind.)
cat test2.cc
#include pthread.h
#include stdio.h
#include unistd.h
#include sys/time.h
#include string
using std::string;
#define COUNT_THREADS 500
pthread_t thread[COUNT_THREADS];
char mode;
int iters;
void f()
{
struct timeval t1,t2;
void* p[iters];
string s;
sleep(2);
while (1)
{
gettimeofday(t1, NULL);
if (mode == 's') {
s = ;
for (int i=0; iiters; i++)
s += 'a';
}
if (mode == 'S') {
string s;
for (int i=0; iiters; i++)
s = 'a';
}
if (mode == 'f')
for (int i=0; iiters; i++)
gettimeofday(t2, NULL);
if (mode == 'm') {
for (int i=0; iiters; i++)
p[i] = malloc(10);
for (int i=0; iiters; i++)
free(p[i]);
}
if (mode == 'n') {
for (int i=0; iiters; i++)
p[i] = (char*) new char(10);
for (int i=0; iiters; i++)
delete (char*) p[i];
}
gettimeofday(t2, NULL);
int usec_d = t2.tv_usec-t1.tv_usec;
int sec_d = t2.tv_sec-t1.tv_sec;
if (usec_d0) {
sec_d--;
usec_d += 100;
}
printf( %u.%06u \n, sec_d, usec_d);
}
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
mode = argv[1][0];
iters = atoi(argv[2]);
for (int i=0; iCOUNT_THREADS; i++) {
pthread_create ( (thread[i]), NULL, (void*(*)(void*))f, NULL );
printf(thread %i created\n, i);
}
while(1) { sleep(1); }
}
On Thursday 10 February 2005 15:46, Coleman Kane wrote:
Could you post the code too, perchance?
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:55:04 +0200, Andriy Tkachuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks.
I noticed the strange stick of pthreads (amount ~ 500)
when allocating dynamic memory by malloc or new
in my system:
uname -a
FreeBSD ant.emict.com 5.3-STABLE FreeBSD 5.3-STABLE #0: Wed Feb 9
17:30:11 EET 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/lin/fbsd_obj/usr/src/sys/ANT i386
It's interesting that the same program behaves differently
when it is compiled in linux and run on my fbsd machine in
linux_base-7.1_7 .
ldd test2-linux
test2-linux:
libpthread.so.0 = /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x28065000)
libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3 = /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3
(0x2807c000) libm.so.6 = /lib/libm.so.6 (0x280bf000)
libc.so.6 = /lib/libc.so.6 (0x280e1000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 = /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x2804c000)
ldd a.out
a.out:
libpthread.so.1 = /usr/lib/libpthread.so.1 (0x28075000)
libstdc++.so.4 = /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.4 (0x28099000)
libm.so.3 = /lib/libm.so.3 (0x2816b000)
libc.so.5 = /lib/libc.so.5 (0x28184000)
Each thread allocates the amount of memory by 10 bytes in loop.
The number of iterations is specified in cmdline arg. The program
prints the time each thread is spent allocating memory in loop.
Let's look on results.
./a.out n 1000 # 1000 iterations of new operator. Every new allocates
10bytes.
thread 0 created
thread 1 created
thread 2 created
thread 3 created
thread 4 created
...
thread 497 created
thread 498 created
thread 499 created
0.001114
0.001022
0.001021
0.001011
0.001014
0.001010
0.001013
0.001050
0.001035
0.001011
0.001013
0.001010
0.001013
0.001010
0.001029
0.001075
0.001053
0.001011
0.001014
0.001011
0.001030
0.001010
0.001015
0.001042
0.001019
0.001011
0.001014
0.001012
0.001013
0.001010
0.001014
0.361604
3.225090
3.225458
3.225696
3.225925
3.226152
3.226380
3.226608
3.226833
3.227062
3.227290
3.227517
3.227744
3.227972
3.228202
3.228451
3.228681
3.228912
3.229140
3.229367
The same, but in linux_base-7.1_7 :
./test2-linux n 1000
thread 0 created
thread 1 created
...
thread 498 created
thread 499 created
0.000467
0.000403
0.000402
...
0.000391
0.000391
0.000395
...
0.000395
0.010564
0.000398
0.000394
The program source is attached.
In linux program is compiled by
$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs
gcc version 2.96 2731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-98)
in fbsd:
gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.4.2 [FreeBSD] 20040728
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org
Re: Boot fails: Default F1? hangs. Trashed MBR? replaced FBSD mbr.
maybe the reason you didn't receive any answer about your problem till now is that you choose the wrong list for your problem the right one is probably -questions anyway: you probably lost the partiotion table as well as mbr. if your filesystems didn't reformatted or erased - all is fine, you don't have to panic since all your information don't lost. if you lost your partition table, you can recover. for this you must find the first sectors of you partitions. all this recovery staff you should do on some another machine or booting from fixit cd, but the first is the best. the first sector of your first slice (let's call it right) starts probably on 63 sector. create it (fdisk) with some reasonable size, say 500Mb. after this try disklabel (if it has several partitions) or fsck to see it's real size. probably you can use some another util for this - no matter. the main idia is that you recover you partition table by content of your partiotions. you may find useful for this dd(1) and file(1) utils. sorry i have no time now for bigger explanations, also i did such staff several years ago (there was even worse case - i erase the disklabels on fbsd slice) and i don't remember some exact things, but i think you will overcome this. regards On Saturday 29 January 2005 05:01, you wrote: Chris Shenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So I booted from floppies, went to Wizard mode, did the Install FreeBSD Bootmanager. Rebooted. Now it halts at the prompt Default: F1 and beeps when I hit any key, like RETURN, F1, etc. Forgot to mention... When I was installing the FreeBSD MBR from floppy, I don't recall the sysinstall program showing me any partitions, at all. Perhaps I've wiped out the info on disk that says where they are and what size. Again, I'm getting way outside my understanding of FreeBSD's boot process, but figured this might be rather significant. I'm getting a bad feeling about this. Thanks again. ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /bin/ls sorting bug?
And AFAICS, there's no way to tell ls: first sort on time, then on filename, then on size, etc. This would make a nice addition though. :) But there is nice sort command and power of unix. Don't you remember the initial UNIX concept to make miracles by small things fired together? :) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
