Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/sandpoint/stand/altboot

2011-10-31 Thread David Laight
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 09:08:33PM +, Frank Wille wrote:
 Module Name:  src
 Committed By: phx
 Date: Sun Oct 30 21:08:33 UTC 2011
 
 Modified Files:
   src/sys/arch/sandpoint/stand/altboot: brdsetup.c dsk.c entry.S fxp.c
   globals.h nvt.c rge.c skg.c stg.c vge.c
 
 Log Message:
 Added in8() and out8() to access a byte with reorder-protection.
 Use it in all drivers instead of (volatile uint8_t *).

This isn't really an ideal solution, I've have to fight membar
instructions embedded into byteswapping accesses on ppc linux.
Drivers may want to do several accesses that can be reordered
before/after one that matters - so need greater control than
enforcing specific membars.

David

-- 
David Laight: da...@l8s.co.uk


Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/sandpoint/stand/altboot

2011-10-31 Thread Frank Wille
David Laight wrote:

 This isn't really an ideal solution, I've have to fight membar
 instructions embedded into byteswapping accesses on ppc linux.
 Drivers may want to do several accesses that can be reordered
 before/after one that matters - so need greater control than
 enforcing specific membars.

Hm. What would you suggest? Is it better to revert this change?

If it is only a matter of performance, I would prefer a slower driver
with increased stability. This is just the boot loader, which reads from
disks with PIO0.

-- 
Frank Wille


Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/m68k

2011-10-31 Thread Izumi Tsutsui
 is a nointr pool safe for this pmap?

I could be stupid in this area.

 iirc x86 pmap allocates pv entries from kmem_map to avoid this kind of
 recursion.

I see, but x86 pmap has been changed to use pool_cache(9) with
pool_allocator_meta during vmlocking merge.
http://cvsweb.NetBSD.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/arch/x86/x86/pmap.c.diff?r1=1.2r2=1.3

Is it enough to use pool(9) with pool_allocator_meta (which uses kmem_map),
or should I revert that pool change and just make uvm_km_alloc() in
old pmap_alloc_pv() use kmem_map instead of kernel_map?

---
Izumi Tsutsui


Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/m68k

2011-10-31 Thread YAMAMOTO Takashi
hi,

 is a nointr pool safe for this pmap?
 
 I could be stupid in this area.
 
 iirc x86 pmap allocates pv entries from kmem_map to avoid this kind of
 recursion.
 
 I see, but x86 pmap has been changed to use pool_cache(9) with
 pool_allocator_meta during vmlocking merge.
 http://cvsweb.NetBSD.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/arch/x86/x86/pmap.c.diff?r1=1.2r2=1.3
 
 Is it enough to use pool(9) with pool_allocator_meta (which uses kmem_map),
 or should I revert that pool change and just make uvm_km_alloc() in
 old pmap_alloc_pv() use kmem_map instead of kernel_map?

although i'm not familiar with this pmap, i think pool_allocator_meta is ok.

YAMAMOTO Takashi

 
 ---
 Izumi Tsutsui


Re: CVS commit: src/distrib/utils/sysinst

2011-10-31 Thread Greg Troxel

  If TNF can provide a open resolver on a stable IPv6 address for use
  by sysinst, that'd be great.

Do we need only a resolver that answers for things in netbsd.org, to
find mirrors, or really a full resolver?


pgpkxsOKL8CZH.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: CVS commit: src/distrib/utils/sysinst

2011-10-31 Thread Jonathan A. Kollasch
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:40:25AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
 
   If TNF can provide a open resolver on a stable IPv6 address for use
   by sysinst, that'd be great.
 
 Do we need only a resolver that answers for things in netbsd.org, to
 find mirrors, or really a full resolver?

Depends, I often will install sets I've built myself from a random
server.  But adding a server (preferably further down the
list) that only answers for netbsd.org might be a option some people
would prefer to use.

Jonathan Kollasch


Re: CVS commit: src/distrib/utils/sysinst

2011-10-31 Thread Martin Husemann
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 03:45:05PM +, Jonathan A. Kollasch wrote:
 Depends, I often will install sets I've built myself from a random
 server.  But adding a server (preferably further down the
 list) that only answers for netbsd.org might be a option some people
 would prefer to use.

I wonder if we should add another option to use the ipv6 default gateway
as nameserver and otherwise declare this a convenience option for a
real world corner case most users won't run into (and not realy care
about the actual resolvers used in that case).

Martin
(but hey, I'm living in a mostly v6 free world still, despite realy
hard trying to change that)