Re: pmap_kenter_pa: mapping already present

2012-02-24 Thread Emmanuel Dreyfus
Mindaugas Rasiukevicius  wrote:

> > pmap_pdp_ctor() abuses pmap_kenter_pa() to change the protection of an
> > already existing mapping.  According to rmind this is because on x86
> > pmap_protect() does not work for pmap_kernel().
> 
> Right.  I have not had a chance to look into it yet..
> 
> Please fill a PR.

I failed to do it at that time, and now the bug is in 6.0_BETA. Here is
the PR: kern/46092

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
m...@netbsd.org


Re: PUFFS fs clean exit

2012-02-24 Thread Emmanuel Dreyfus
YAMAMOTO Takashi  wrote:

> did you find out which call of mutex_enter() it was?

My best suspect is pn->pn_sizemtx but I fail to see how it will not be
cleared.

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
m...@netbsd.org


Re: maximum number of CPUs

2012-02-24 Thread Brook Milligan
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:17:17 +
Mindaugas Rasiukevicius  wrote:
> Right.  Patch synced with HEAD changes, if somebody enjoys debugging:
> 
> http://www.netbsd.org/~rmind/x86_256_cpus_v5.diff

While I do not have a physical machine with more than 32 CPUs, I do
have a vendor contact who seems willing to test NetBSD on a machine the
next time something like that comes through.  If this support can be
integrated and tested with Xen then they would be ready as soon as he
builds up such a system.

Cheers,
Brook


Re: Snapshots in tmpfs

2012-02-24 Thread David Holland
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 08:24:59AM +, David Laight wrote:
 > > Oh, my mistake, since there was concern about filesystem type I
 > > thought you were talking about raw flash, but apparently CompactFlash
 > > is not raw flash, same as USB sticks aren't.
 > 
 > OTOH I've seen a CF card with completely trashed contents.
 > Data in all the wrong sectors.
 > I suspect it had power removed in the middle of someinternal action.

That's... all too probable, I'm afraid, given the likely market
constraints on the firmware for those things.

no recourse, though.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholl...@netbsd.org


Early panic in uvm_map_prepare()

2012-02-24 Thread Julian Coleman
Hi,

I tried booting a Sun E3500 (sparc64) with today's current, but it dies early
with:

  Loading netbsd: 8945656+559016+366344 [599208+399025]=0xdd6328
  panic: uvm_km_bootstrap: could not reserve kernel kmem

This is the "uvm_map_findspace failed" ENOMEM return in uvm_map_prepare():

  http://opengrok.netbsd.org/source/xref/src/sys/uvm/uvm_map.c#1167

Any ideas?

Thanks,

J

-- 
  My other computer also runs NetBSD/Sailing at Newbiggin
http://www.netbsd.org//   http://www.newbigginsailingclub.org/


Re: Snapshots in tmpfs

2012-02-24 Thread David Laight
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:45:32AM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:20:18PM +, David Holland wrote:
>  > > > Is CHFS really suitable for CompactFlash?  Is LFS even usable?
>  > > 
>  > > No 
>  > 
>  > I thought the whole point of chfs was to be able to operate on raw
>  > flash devices that don't have their own flash translation layer.
> 
> Oh, my mistake, since there was concern about filesystem type I
> thought you were talking about raw flash, but apparently CompactFlash
> is not raw flash, same as USB sticks aren't.

OTOH I've seen a CF card with completely trashed contents.
Data in all the wrong sectors.
I suspect it had power removed in the middle of someinternal action.

David

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


Re: Snapshots in tmpfs

2012-02-24 Thread Jonathan Stone
I think you mean "halves the write rate".


--- On Thu, 2/23/12, Thor Lancelot Simon  wrote:

From: Thor Lancelot Simon 
Subject: Re: Snapshots in tmpfs
To: "David Holland" 
Cc: tech-kern@netbsd.org
Date: Thursday, February 23, 2012, 5:04 PM

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:45:32AM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:20:18PM +, David Holland wrote:
>  > > > Is CHFS really suitable for CompactFlash?  Is LFS even usable?
>  > > 
>  > > No 
>  > 
>  > I thought the whole point of chfs was to be able to operate on raw
>  > flash devices that don't have their own flash translation layer.
> 
> Oh, my mistake, since there was concern about filesystem type I
> thought you were talking about raw flash, but apparently CompactFlash
> is not raw flash, same as USB sticks aren't.
> 
> In that case, just use wapbl.

That doubles the write rate for the common "create new version of
file and rename into place" pattern...

Translation layer or not, doubling the write rate to any type of
flash is not a great idea.

-- 
Thor Lancelot Simon                                   t...@panix.com
  "All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
   at once."    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract