On Saturday, May 07, 2011 5:37:26 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
I believe that the following change is needed to fix COUNT_IPIS option.
Right now it seems to be a noop.
mp_ipi_intrcnt: CPU_FOREACH can't be used this early
... because all_cpus is not set yet.
Have you tested this?
On Saturday, May 07, 2011 3:16:25 pm Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 04:16:40PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, May 06, 2011 10:04:28 am Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 04:38:00PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 06/05/2011 16:32 Kostik Belousov said the
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:45 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Saturday, May 07, 2011 3:16:25 pm Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 04:16:40PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, May 06, 2011 10:04:28 am Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 04:38:00PM
On Monday, May 09, 2011 11:35:07 am Alan Cox wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:45 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Saturday, May 07, 2011 3:16:25 pm Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 04:16:40PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, May 06, 2011 10:04:28 am Kostik
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 01:38:24PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, May 09, 2011 11:35:07 am Alan Cox wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:45 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Saturday, May 07, 2011 3:16:25 pm Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 04:16:40PM -0400,
On Friday 15 April 2011 23:29:55 David Naylor wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2011 18:28:06 John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:07:06 pm David Naylor wrote:
On Tuesday 12 April 2011 22:12:55 Alexander Motin wrote:
David Naylor wrote:
On Tuesday 12 April 2011 08:17:51
On Monday, May 09, 2011 2:24:37 pm David Naylor wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2011 23:29:55 David Naylor wrote:
On Friday 15 April 2011 18:28:06 John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:07:06 pm David Naylor wrote:
On Tuesday 12 April 2011 22:12:55 Alexander Motin wrote:
David
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 14:35 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
does anyone know if there is a limitation on firewire debugging on a
machine with 4GB or memory?
I have 1394 {a,b} cards. does it make a difference?
also, the firewire card on one machine stops it from booting..
is there a way
On 5/9/11 12:48 PM, Sean Bruno wrote:
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 14:35 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
does anyone know if there is a limitation on firewire debugging on a
machine with 4GB or memory?
I have 1394 {a,b} cards. does it make a difference?
also, the firewire card on one machine stops
Hi,
I have a cosmetic patch that moves the geom kprocs to kthreads
from
PID TT STAT TIME COMMAND
2 ?? DL 2:38.03 [g_event]
3 ?? DL49:43.61 [g_up]
4 ?? DL57:10.71 [g_down]
to
% procstat -t 13
PIDTID COMM TDNAME CPU PRI STATE
Hi Julian,
does anyone know if there is a limitation on firewire debugging on a
machine with 4GB or memory?
I don't know of any Firewire cards that support physical access
*above* 4GB. They may exist.
For instance, the (last?) Texas Instruments PCIe 1394a/b chip, the
XIO2213B, has the
On 10.05.2011 02:48, Doug Barton wrote:
I would start from most obvious problems. I need to know more about
crashes. As usual: how to trigger, stack backtraces, etc.
Triggering is easy, I can start a buildworld with -j2, and a build of
ports/www/firefox with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS, and within 30
Alexander,
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 04:29:25AM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 10.05.2011 02:48, Doug Barton wrote:
Ok, so kern.eventtimer.timer=LAPIC in /boot/loader.conf should do
that, right?
Yes. You can do it in run-time also.
Not quite absolutely sure here but IIRC the last time
New symptom, today (still running r221566) I compiled a small port, that
worked without any freezes or interactivity problems. Then I tried
compiling a larger port (java/openjdk6 if anyone cares) and still no
interactivity problems, but I got the system wedge requiring power
cycle problem I was
14 matches
Mail list logo
