On 07/08/2011 06:19, John Baldwin wrote:
> Hmm, well that's odd. It didn't grow it enough it seems.
>
>>> Also, can you boot your machine, then do 'sysctl debug.bootverbose=1',
>>> insert
>>> the card and record the messages in dmesg when it does? (You can likely
>>> get
>>> those out of kg
m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Ali Mashtizadeh
> wrote:
> > Maybe someone can setup something like reviewboard [1] for
> > developers
> > to use. This may also help folks who want to keep abreast of the
> > current work in a particular subsystem or get involved into the
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Ali Mashtizadeh wrote:
> Maybe someone can setup something like reviewboard [1] for developers
> to use. This may also help folks who want to keep abreast of the
> current work in a particular subsystem or get involved into the
> development process more. At my com
Maybe someone can setup something like reviewboard [1] for developers
to use. This may also help folks who want to keep abreast of the
current work in a particular subsystem or get involved into the
development process more. At my company we use reviews and it seems to
help the catch some bugs and
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 05:50:44PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Steve Kargl
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For the record, I wo
Hi,
[re-sent publicly, I did not "Replied-to-all":)]
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Steve Kargl
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>
>>> For the record, I would like to see enforced pub
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 11/07/2011 23:33 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
>> For the record, I would like to see enforced public review for _every_
>> patch *before* it is checked in, as a strong rule. gcc system is
>> particularly interesting. But it is no
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>
>> For the record, I would like to see enforced public review for _every_
>> patch *before* it is checked in, as a strong rule. gcc system is
>> particularly interesting. B
on 11/07/2011 23:33 Arnaud Lacombe said the following:
> For the record, I would like to see enforced public review for _every_
> patch *before* it is checked in, as a strong rule. gcc system is
> particularly interesting. But it is not likely to happen in FreeBSD
> where FreeBSD committers are cle
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
> For the record, I would like to see enforced public review for _every_
> patch *before* it is checked in, as a strong rule. gcc system is
> particularly interesting. But it is not likely to happen in FreeBSD
> where FreeBSD commit
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> (OT, yes, but I'd like to take a stab at explaining "why" these things
> fall to the wayside..)
>
> On 7 July 2011 12:08, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
>> What would be the point to even start looking at an issue? You guys
>> (by "you", I mean
On Mon Jul 11 11, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Saturday, July 09, 2011 5:44:16 am Alexander Best wrote:
> > On Sat Jul 9 11, Alexander Best wrote:
> > > On Fri Jul 8 11, Alexander Best wrote:
> > > > On Fri Jul 8 11, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > > This patch lets you use 'P' while top is running to t
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 08:05:56PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote:
> >>Should the bit slice be 7 or 8 bits ?
>
> >I propose to go 8 bits, and add the check to be future-proof.
>
> >It seems that we already parse GNU/kFreeBSD brandnote. I think this
> >could be used to distinguish between old behaviou
Should the bit slice be 7 or 8 bits ?
I propose to go 8 bits, and add the check to be future-proof.
It seems that we already parse GNU/kFreeBSD brandnote. I think this
could be used to distinguish between old behaviour, that is currently
used by your libc, and proposed new interface, if __Fr
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 06:12:15PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote:
> >I would instead use a new flag to specify a signal sent on the child
> >death. Like RFTSIGZMB. If flag is not set, SIGCHLD is used. If it is
> >set, the bit slice is used as signal number, 0 means do not send any
> >signal.
> >
> >Pl
On Saturday, July 09, 2011 5:44:16 am Alexander Best wrote:
> On Sat Jul 9 11, Alexander Best wrote:
> > On Fri Jul 8 11, Alexander Best wrote:
> > > On Fri Jul 8 11, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > This patch lets you use 'P' while top is running to toggle between
> > > > per-CPU and
> > > > globa
On 11 July 2011 17:07, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> Yeah, but what problem is demonstrated here?
> Are we confident that non-even workload is inherently bad?
> E.g.:
> 79.39 + .. + 77.59 < 5 * 80 = 400
> 100.00 + ... + 55.18 ~~ 402 which is more than theoretically possible :-)
> So it would _appear_ tha
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:42:02PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> That top output is averaged and slow to adjust.
> Using "top" as an indication as to what's really going on is likely
> not a good idea.
>
Restoring top output here:
> PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIMEC
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 06:07:04PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 11/07/2011 17:41 Ivan Voras said the following:
> > On 07/07/2011 22:08, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >
> >> 4BSD kernel gives for N = Ncpu + 1.
> >>
> >> 34 processes: 6 running, 28 sleeping
> >>
> >>PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE
I would instead use a new flag to specify a signal sent on the child
death. Like RFTSIGZMB. If flag is not set, SIGCHLD is used. If it is
set, the bit slice is used as signal number, 0 means do not send any
signal.
Please note that the signal should be checked for validity, it must be
<= _SIG_MAX
That top output is averaged and slow to adjust.
Using "top" as an indication as to what's really going on is likely
not a good idea.
2c,
Adrian
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To un
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 05:43:23PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote:
> >>The 1st patch satisfies this. I agree that SIGCHLD part
> >>is not easily readable.
> >The SIGCHLD part is ugly. This is why I am asking about possible ways
> >to overcome this.
>
> We need a way to specify "no signal".
> It can be
The 1st patch satisfies this. I agree that SIGCHLD part
is not easily readable.
The SIGCHLD part is ugly. This is why I am asking about possible ways
to overcome this.
We need a way to specify "no signal".
It can be "new flag" or "ugly SIGCHLD".
new flag:
pros: cleaner design
cons: one bit
Can you, please, describe the reasoning behind the
+ if (sig == SIGCHLD) sig = 0;
line ?
The main reason is backward compatibility.
The original FreeBSD code allows only to select between
SIGUSR1 or SIGCHLD signals.
The our extension changes meaning of RFLINUXTHPN to select sign
RFLINUXPTH was used by the linuxthreads port, that was popular in the
time of FreeBSD 4.x and may be 5.x to run mysql. I will object against
this breakage.
Do I understand correctly that API/ABI backward compatibility with
previous FreeBSD releases w.r.t RFLINUXPTH is needed ?
The 1st patch s
2011/7/11 Kostik Belousov :
> I shall state that the sig == SIGCHLD case is ugly. Having the separate
> flag "do not send signal to the parent" would be much less clumsy.
> What are the requirements for the ABI stability for Debian/kFreeBSD ?
> Can this be fixed now, or is it too late ?
Perhaps we
On 07/06/11 16:44, Berczi Gabor wrote:
> For some reason FreeBSD can't boot automatically:
...
> I have two pools, pool2 which is a mirrored zpool, and data being a
> raid-z pool. Note how the default should be "pool2:/boot/zfsloader". How
> can I fix this?
The following applies to 8-STABLE from 2
on 11/07/2011 17:41 Ivan Voras said the following:
> On 07/07/2011 22:08, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
>> 4BSD kernel gives for N = Ncpu + 1.
>>
>> 34 processes: 6 running, 28 sleeping
>>
>>PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIMECPU COMMAND
>> 1417 kargl 1 710 370
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:50:44PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote:
> >RFLINUXPTH was used by the linuxthreads port, that was popular in the
> >time of FreeBSD 4.x and may be 5.x to run mysql. I will object against
> >this breakage.
>
> Do I understand correctly that API/ABI backward compatibility with
On 07/07/2011 22:08, Steve Kargl wrote:
4BSD kernel gives for N = Ncpu + 1.
34 processes: 6 running, 28 sleeping
PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIMECPU COMMAND
1417 kargl 1 710 370M 294M RUN 0 1:30 79.39% sasmp
1416 kargl 1 710
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:23:36PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote:
> >>>Can you, please, describe the reasoning behind the
> + if (sig == SIGCHLD) sig = 0;
> >>>line ?
> >>
> >>The main reason is backward compatibility.
> >>The original FreeBSD code allows only to select between
> >>SIGUSR1
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 03:27:56PM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote:
> >>This patch made by Petr Salinger improves compatibility with
> >>LinuxThreads in rfork() syscall. The Linux clone() implementation
> >>allows specifying the signal sent to parent when child terminates
> >>(instead of SIGCHLD).
> >>
2011/7/8 Marius Strobl :
> In order to have a result which can be compared with the base BIND.
> Whether bind98 works or works without the ISC atomic operations says
> nothing about the bind96 port or the base version.
Okey...
> Oops, sorry, I forgot to revert the previous patch when test-compili
33 matches
Mail list logo
