Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable
Robert Watson wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote: This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and related products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there are any remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and make sure to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING that the option and details have changed. I still get confused as to the meaning of this... It only breaks ABI when it's enabled. I think that is OK, right? As we're eliminating MUTEX_PROFILING and replacing it with LOCK_PROFILING, I think it is OK that the ABI for one differs from the other as long as the base kernel ABI remains static. I.e., this seems OK to me also. If -stable will have LOCK_PROFILING, it'd be really nice to have it compatible with a standard world in some way, even if just with a makefile hack that builds netstat_lp(1) in addition to netstat(1) (and other utilities.) One can easily boot a diskless email, web, or name server into kernels with other debug-type options without maintaining multiple worlds. One might want to run a LOCK_PROFILING stable kernel on a diskless email server for a period of time, but that will require either a matching world, or putting up with breakage for that period of time, neither of which is a fair expectation in a stable environment, IMO. I can maintain local makefile hacks for production if somebody with some makefile foo gets me started. -- Skip ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable
On Sunday 21 October 2007 04:56:30 am Kris Kennaway wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071020 10:21] wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: Hey guys, I have LOCK_PROFILING done for a product based on FreeBSD-6, this means I can relatively easily backport LOCK_PROFILING from FreeBSD-7 to FreeBSD-6. Do we want this? I'd like to do it if people want it. I think it should be done, performance is a lot better than the old 6.x version and it also adds another very useful performance metric (time spent waiting for the lock). The only concern is that it doesn't break ABI support when not compiled in, but I'm pretty sure you've already told me this is OK. Thanks for looking at this. This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and related products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there are any remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and make sure to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING that the option and details have changed. I still get confused as to the meaning of this... It only breaks ABI when it's enabled. I think that is OK, right? Yes, that is fine. Other existing debugging options also break ABI when enabled, so it's OK. Well, MUTEX_PROFILING does and LOCK_PROFILING is the same thing. This option is a known special case that breaks the ABI and people using it should already be aware of that. Other debugging options (INVARIANTS, WITNESS, etc.) do not affect the ABI. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable
John Baldwin wrote: On Sunday 21 October 2007 04:56:30 am Kris Kennaway wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071020 10:21] wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: Hey guys, I have LOCK_PROFILING done for a product based on FreeBSD-6, this means I can relatively easily backport LOCK_PROFILING from FreeBSD-7 to FreeBSD-6. Do we want this? I'd like to do it if people want it. I think it should be done, performance is a lot better than the old 6.x version and it also adds another very useful performance metric (time spent waiting for the lock). The only concern is that it doesn't break ABI support when not compiled in, but I'm pretty sure you've already told me this is OK. Thanks for looking at this. This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and related products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there are any remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and make sure to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING that the option and details have changed. I still get confused as to the meaning of this... It only breaks ABI when it's enabled. I think that is OK, right? Yes, that is fine. Other existing debugging options also break ABI when enabled, so it's OK. Well, MUTEX_PROFILING does and LOCK_PROFILING is the same thing. This option is a known special case that breaks the ABI and people using it should already be aware of that. Other debugging options (INVARIANTS, WITNESS, etc.) do not affect the ABI. DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS and/or DEBUG_LOCKS also break the ABI. Kris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable
* Skip Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071024 10:47] wrote:
Robert Watson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper
for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and
capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and
related products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there
are any remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and
make sure to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING
that the option and details have changed.
I still get confused as to the meaning of this...
It only breaks ABI when it's enabled.
I think that is OK, right?
As we're eliminating MUTEX_PROFILING and replacing it with LOCK_PROFILING,
I think it is OK that the ABI for one differs from the other as long as the
base kernel ABI remains static. I.e., this seems OK to me also.
If -stable will have LOCK_PROFILING, it'd be really nice to have
it compatible with a standard world in some way, even if just with
a makefile hack that builds netstat_lp(1) in addition to
netstat(1) (and other utilities.)
One can easily boot a diskless email, web, or name server into
kernels with other debug-type options without maintaining
multiple worlds. One might want to run a LOCK_PROFILING stable
kernel on a diskless email server for a period of time, but
that will require either a matching world, or putting up with
breakage for that period of time, neither of which is a fair
expectation in a stable environment, IMO.
I can maintain local makefile hacks for production if somebody
with some makefile foo gets me started.
This is really beyond the scope of what I have time for however
I can say that probably all that is needed is a Makefile that
uses something like a makefile in a directory next to netstat
called netstat_lp and either duplicate the makefile and add:
SRCDIR= ${.CURDIR}/netstat
CFLAGS+=-DLOCKPROFILING
or like make the netstat directory have a Makefile.netstat.inc in it
with the common parts and have both Makefiles for netstat and netstat_lp
include it. in fact you could hack netstat to exec netstat_lp if the
sysctls indicating lockprofiling is enabled... e. :)
good luck!
--
- Alfred Perlstein
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 03:44:52 pm Kris Kennaway wrote: John Baldwin wrote: On Sunday 21 October 2007 04:56:30 am Kris Kennaway wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071020 10:21] wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: Hey guys, I have LOCK_PROFILING done for a product based on FreeBSD-6, this means I can relatively easily backport LOCK_PROFILING from FreeBSD-7 to FreeBSD-6. Do we want this? I'd like to do it if people want it. I think it should be done, performance is a lot better than the old 6.x version and it also adds another very useful performance metric (time spent waiting for the lock). The only concern is that it doesn't break ABI support when not compiled in, but I'm pretty sure you've already told me this is OK. Thanks for looking at this. This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and related products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there are any remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and make sure to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING that the option and details have changed. I still get confused as to the meaning of this... It only breaks ABI when it's enabled. I think that is OK, right? Yes, that is fine. Other existing debugging options also break ABI when enabled, so it's OK. Well, MUTEX_PROFILING does and LOCK_PROFILING is the same thing. This option is a known special case that breaks the ABI and people using it should already be aware of that. Other debugging options (INVARIANTS, WITNESS, etc.) do not affect the ABI. DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS and/or DEBUG_LOCKS also break the ABI. True, but those are the exception rather than the rule. -- John Baldwin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable
Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071020 10:21] wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: Hey guys, I have LOCK_PROFILING done for a product based on FreeBSD-6, this means I can relatively easily backport LOCK_PROFILING from FreeBSD-7 to FreeBSD-6. Do we want this? I'd like to do it if people want it. I think it should be done, performance is a lot better than the old 6.x version and it also adds another very useful performance metric (time spent waiting for the lock). The only concern is that it doesn't break ABI support when not compiled in, but I'm pretty sure you've already told me this is OK. Thanks for looking at this. This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and related products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there are any remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and make sure to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING that the option and details have changed. I still get confused as to the meaning of this... It only breaks ABI when it's enabled. I think that is OK, right? Yes, that is fine. Other existing debugging options also break ABI when enabled, so it's OK. Kris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote: This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and related products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there are any remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and make sure to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING that the option and details have changed. I still get confused as to the meaning of this... It only breaks ABI when it's enabled. I think that is OK, right? As we're eliminating MUTEX_PROFILING and replacing it with LOCK_PROFILING, I think it is OK that the ABI for one differs from the other as long as the base kernel ABI remains static. I.e., this seems OK to me also. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable
* Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071021 01:56] wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: * Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071020 10:21] wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: Hey guys, I have LOCK_PROFILING done for a product based on FreeBSD-6, this means I can relatively easily backport LOCK_PROFILING from FreeBSD-7 to FreeBSD-6. Do we want this? I'd like to do it if people want it. I think it should be done, performance is a lot better than the old 6.x version and it also adds another very useful performance metric (time spent waiting for the lock). The only concern is that it doesn't break ABI support when not compiled in, but I'm pretty sure you've already told me this is OK. Thanks for looking at this. This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and related products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there are any remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and make sure to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING that the option and details have changed. I still get confused as to the meaning of this... It only breaks ABI when it's enabled. I think that is OK, right? Yes, that is fine. Other existing debugging options also break ABI when enabled, so it's OK. OK, I should have something over the next couple of weeks. -- - Alfred Perlstein ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable
Alfred Perlstein wrote: Hey guys, I have LOCK_PROFILING done for a product based on FreeBSD-6, this means I can relatively easily backport LOCK_PROFILING from FreeBSD-7 to FreeBSD-6. Do we want this? I'd like to do it if people want it. I think it should be done, performance is a lot better than the old 6.x version and it also adds another very useful performance metric (time spent waiting for the lock). The only concern is that it doesn't break ABI support when not compiled in, but I'm pretty sure you've already told me this is OK. Thanks for looking at this. Kris ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: Hey guys, I have LOCK_PROFILING done for a product based on FreeBSD-6, this means I can relatively easily backport LOCK_PROFILING from FreeBSD-7 to FreeBSD-6. Do we want this? I'd like to do it if people want it. I think it should be done, performance is a lot better than the old 6.x version and it also adds another very useful performance metric (time spent waiting for the lock). The only concern is that it doesn't break ABI support when not compiled in, but I'm pretty sure you've already told me this is OK. Thanks for looking at this. This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and related products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there are any remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and make sure to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING that the option and details have changed. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable
* Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071020 10:21] wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote: Alfred Perlstein wrote: Hey guys, I have LOCK_PROFILING done for a product based on FreeBSD-6, this means I can relatively easily backport LOCK_PROFILING from FreeBSD-7 to FreeBSD-6. Do we want this? I'd like to do it if people want it. I think it should be done, performance is a lot better than the old 6.x version and it also adds another very useful performance metric (time spent waiting for the lock). The only concern is that it doesn't break ABI support when not compiled in, but I'm pretty sure you've already told me this is OK. Thanks for looking at this. This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and related products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there are any remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and make sure to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING that the option and details have changed. I still get confused as to the meaning of this... It only breaks ABI when it's enabled. I think that is OK, right? -- - Alfred Perlstein ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LOCK_PROFILING in -stable
Hey guys, I have LOCK_PROFILING done for a product based on FreeBSD-6, this means I can relatively easily backport LOCK_PROFILING from FreeBSD-7 to FreeBSD-6. Do we want this? I'd like to do it if people want it. -- - Alfred Perlstein ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
