On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Glen Barber wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 07:23:49AM -0700, Sean Bruno wrote:
>> On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 10:12 -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
>> > Two machines in the cluster panic last night with the same backtrace.
>> > It is unclear yet exactly what was happening on
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Xin Li wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi,
>
> It looks like there is a regression (or a regression that gets exposed
> by some new feature) that is related to time-keeping or timecounter,
> although I'm not yet familiar with the rel
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Alexander Yerenkow wrote:
>
> That was their official tools, which are came from ISO which mounted with
> command "install/upgrade client tools".
There is not much I can do then, unless they update their source-code.
Or do you have any pointer?
Attilio
--
Peac
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:55 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:25:06 am Alexander Yerenkow wrote:
>> Hello all.
>> I have panics in vmware with installed vmwaretools (they are guessed
>> culprit).
>> Seems that memory balooning (or using more memory in all vms than there is
>>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Florian Smeets wrote:
> On 06/25/2013 22:45, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> Long story short is that I've run into an issue on several VM
>> images and real machines where UFS on mpt fails to reboot because it
>> hangs in the kernel. I don't have any specific detail
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Ryan Stone wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Ian Lepore wrote:
>>
>> ticks is defined as a signed integer but conceptually it is unsigned --
>> it increments from 0 to UINT_MAX (not INT_MAX) then rolls over. If
>> td->td_blktick is captured while ticks =
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Ryan Stone wrote:
> Currently deadlkres performs the following comparison when trying to check
> for threads that have been blocked on a mutex or sleeping on an sx lock:
>
> if (TD_ON_LOCK(td) && ticks < td->td_blktick) {
> /* check for deadlock...*/
Yes the
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Marcelo/Porks wrote:
>
> On Mar 22, 2013 1:02 AM, "Attilio Rao" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Marcelo/Porks
>> wrote:
>> > Hi, I'm facing an error compiling the sysutils/fusefs-kmod.
>&g
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Marcelo/Porks wrote:
> Hi, I'm facing an error compiling the sysutils/fusefs-kmod.
>
> I'm using the CURRENT from today (2013-03-21).
>
> Can someone using the CURRENT confirm if this also happens in your system?
CURRENT should not allow you to build fusefs-kmod a
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:11:59PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
>> > Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:38:21PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
>> > > > Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> > > > > .. what wa
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 16/11/2012 16:42 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>> on 15/11/2012 23:44 Attilio Rao said the following:
>>> Do you think you can test this patch?:
>>> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/lockmgr_forcerec.patch
>
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> FreeBSD bbb.ccc 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #0:
> Fri Nov 23 17:00:40 CET 2012
> a...@bbb.ccc:/usr/obj/usr/src/head/sys/GENERIC amd64
>
> #0 doadump (textdump=-2014022336) at pcpu.h:229
> #1 0x8033e2d2 in db_fncall (dummy1
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Ryan Stone wrote:
>> Today I saw a spurious witness warning for "acquiring duplicate lock of
>> same type". The root cause is that when running mtx_destroy on a spinlock
>> tha
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Ryan Stone wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>>
>>> I seriously wonder why right now we don't assume the lock is unheld.
>>>
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Ryan Stone wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> I seriously wonder why right now we don't assume the lock is unheld.
>> There are likely historically reasons for that, but I would like to
>> know
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Ryan Stone wrote:
> Today I saw a spurious witness warning for "acquiring duplicate lock of
> same type". The root cause is that when running mtx_destroy on a spinlock
> that is held by the current thread, mtx_destroy calls spinlock_exit()
> before calling WITNESS
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 15/11/2012 20:46 Attilio Rao said the following:
>> On 11/15/12, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>
>>> To people knowing the code,
>>>
>>> do the following documentation changes look correct?
>>
&
On 11/15/12, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> To people knowing the code,
>
> do the following documentation changes look correct?
The latter chunk is not correct.
It will panic only if assertions are on. I was thinking that however
it would be good idea to patch lockmgr to panic also in non-debugging
ker
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:50 PM, C. P. Ghost wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> Following the plan reported here:
>> http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
>>
>> We are now at the state where all non-MPSAFE filesystems are
>> d
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Raoul MEGELAS wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:58:00 +0100
> Attilio Rao wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Raoul MEGELAS wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:07:36 +0100
>> Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/21/12, Ra
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Raoul MEGELAS wrote:
> sorry for posting 2 times the same message!
>
>
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:07:36 +0100
> Attilio Rao wrote:
>
>>On 10/21/12, Raoul MEGELAS wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:04:46 +0100
>>> Attilio R
On 10/21/12, Raoul MEGELAS wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:04:46 +0100
> Attilio Rao wrote:
> Hi Attilio,
>
>
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Raoul wrote:
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Trying to mount a partition from type ntfs
>>> with the following
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Raoul wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Trying to mount a partition from type ntfs
> with the following conditions i get:
>
> R241700, with fusefs-libs in sync.
>
> kldload fuse
> fuse loaded
> mount -t ntfs /dev/daXsX
> not supported!
> mount_ntfs /dev/daXsX
>
Following the plan reported here:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
We are now at the state where all non-MPSAFE filesystems are
disconnected by the three.
At this point we can proceed with the import of a revised kib's patch
as reported in that page. This will mean effectively remove
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM, AN wrote:
>
> FreeBSD FBSD10 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #26 r241612: Tue Oct 16
> 13:03:26 EDT 2012 root@FBSD10:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL amd64
>
> I loaded the module with kldload fuse.ko
>
> # kldstat
> Id Refs AddressSize Name
>
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> 2012/7/4 Attilio Rao :
>>>> 2012/6/29 Attilio Rao :
>>>>> As already published s
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer
>> wrote:
>>> schrieb Attilio Rao am 28.09.2012 16:18 (localtime):
>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer
>> wrote:
>>> schrieb Attilio Rao am 28.09.2012 16:18 (localtime):
>>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer
wrote:
> schrieb Attilio Rao am 28.09.2012 16:18 (localtime):
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer
>> wrote:
>>> ...
>> After many people willing to test fuse on STABLE_9, I made this patch
&
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer
wrote:
> schrieb Harald Schmalzbauer am 25.09.2012 20:24 (localtime):
>> schrieb Attilio Rao am 21.09.2012 02:22 (localtime):
>>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 a
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2012/7/4 Attilio Rao :
>>> 2012/6/29 Attilio Rao :
>>>> As already published several times, according to the following plan:
>>>> htt
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
[ trimm ]
>
> You can use the branch directly or this patch against -CURRENT at 240752:
> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/fuse_import/fuse_240752.patch
>
> In order to test this work, then, you just need to patch (or use
> d
On 9/19/12, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Attilio Rao
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Attilio
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> 2012/7/4 Attilio Rao :
>>>> 2012/6/29 Attilio Rao :
>>>>> As already published s
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2012/7/4 Attilio Rao :
>> 2012/6/29 Attilio Rao :
>>> As already published several times, according to the following plan:
>>> http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
>>>
>>
>> I still hav
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote:
We currently dont compile 4680 ports (out of 23857). Top
On 9/11/12, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 01:45:18PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:12:07PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote:
>> > For the past several years we've been working towards migrating from
>> > GCC to Clang/LLVM as our default compiler. We inte
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 03:52:56PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On 8/23/12, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > I am a bit unclear on what are the pros and cons of using
>> > TUNABLE_INT vs TUNA
On 8/23/12, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> Hi,
> I am a bit unclear on what are the pros and cons of using
> TUNABLE_INT vs TUNABLE_INT_FETCH within a device driver.
TUNABLE_INT is basically the "statically initializer" version of
TUNABLE_INT_FETCH.
In short terms, you will use TUNABLE_INT_FETCH() in norma
On 8/1/12, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
[ trimm ]
>> You are forgetting one specific detail: you can always review a work
>> *after* it entered the tree. This is something you would never do, but
>> sometimes
On 8/1/12, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao
>>> wrote:
>>&
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> You don't want to work cooperatively.
>>
> Why is it that mbuf's refactoring consultation is being held in
> internal, private, co
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
[...] We lack that right now, which is why y
On 7/21/12, Antony Mawer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2012/7/18, Gustau Pérez i Querol :
>>>
>>> Sorry fo the delay.
>>>
>>> About the ntfs support, I'd go with fuse and leave the most relevant
>&g
2012/7/18, Gustau Pérez i Querol :
>
> Sorry fo the delay.
>
> About the ntfs support, I'd go with fuse and leave the most relevant
> filesystems in kernel space. In fact filesystems not particulary
> specific and not tied our kernel would go to userspace; thinks like
> smbfs, nwfs, ntfs, e
2012/7/4 Attilio Rao :
> 2012/6/29 Attilio Rao :
>> As already published several times, according to the following plan:
>> http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
>>
>
> I still haven't heard from Vivien or Edward, anyway as NTFS is
> basically only used
2012/6/29 Attilio Rao :
> As already published several times, according to the following plan:
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
>
I still haven't heard from Vivien or Edward, anyway as NTFS is
basically only used RO these days (also the mount_ntfs code just
permits
2012/7/2, Russell Cattelan :
> On 7/2/12 1:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 03:52:05PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> anything by SoC involved people about NTFS and certainly I don't see a
>>> plan to get XFS locked.
>>
>> Stup
2012/7/2, Christoph Hellwig :
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 03:52:05PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> anything by SoC involved people about NTFS and certainly I don't see a
>> plan to get XFS locked.
>
> Stupid question, but what amount of locking does XFS in FreeBSD sti
2012/7/1 C. P. Ghost :
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> As already published several times, according to the following plan:
>> http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
>>
>> in 2 months the code dealing with non-MPSAFE filesystem will be
As already published several times, according to the following plan:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NONMPSAFE_DEORBIT_VFS
in 2 months the code dealing with non-MPSAFE filesystem will be
removed and filesystems not yet MPSAFE will be disconnected from the
tree. Their code will be however available in our
2012/6/13, Svatopluk Kraus :
> Hi,
>
> it looks similar to
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2011-March/023829.html
Yes, that is likely the problem.
However, I would really love to workaround the pid allocation race in
another way than PRS_NEW because this imposes an extra-cons
2012/5/17, Andriy Gapon :
> on 25/01/2012 23:52 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>> on 24/01/2012 14:32 Gleb Smirnoff said the following:
>>> Yes, now:
>>>
>>> Rebooting...
>>> lock order reversal:
>>> 1st 0x80937140 smp rendezvous (smp rendezvous) @
>>> /usr/src/head/sys/kern/kern_shutdow
2012/5/16, Andriy Gapon :
> on 16/05/2012 15:37 Attilio Rao said the following:
>> 2012/5/16, Andriy Gapon :
>>>
>>> I would like to commit something like the following patch.
>>> I think that in-kernel watchdog patting during crash dump is useful with
>>
2012/5/16, Andriy Gapon :
>
> I would like to commit something like the following patch.
> I think that in-kernel watchdog patting during crash dump is useful with
> hardware watchdogs too. The code seems to work fine here.
> In fact, I am not sure why wdog_kern_pat was originally tied to
> SW_WAT
2012/5/3, Steven Atreju :
> K. Macy wrote [2012-05-03 02:58+0200]:
>> It's highly chipset and processor dependent what works best.
>
> Yes, of course.
> Though i was kinda, even shocked, once i've seen this first:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=dragonfly-commits&m=132241713812022&w=2
>
> So we don't use
Il 20 aprile 2012 19:18, Arnaud Lacombe ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I will be bringing up an old thread there, but it would seem the
>> situation did not evolve in the past 9 years. I have a machine running
>> 7.1 whose UHCI controller
Please read NOTES.
Attilio
Il 13 aprile 2012 14:37, Aleksandr Rybalko ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> When kernel build with option KTR_CPUMASK, build failed with following
> error:
>
> cc -c -O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -std=c99 -Wall -Wredundant-decls
> -Wnested-externs -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissin
Il 06 aprile 2012 18:54, Arnaud Lacombe ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> Il 05 aprile 2012 19:03, Arnaud Lacombe ha scritto:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> Over the past months, I ran on a couple of unused box the
&g
Il 05 aprile 2012 19:03, Arnaud Lacombe ha scritto:
> Hi folks,
>
> Over the past months, I ran on a couple of unused box the
> `hackbench'[HACKBENCH] benchmark used by the Linux folks for tracking
> down various kind of regression/improvement. `hackbench' is a
> scheduler + IPC test (socket xor p
Il 06 aprile 2012 15:27, Alexander Motin ha scritto:
> On 04/06/12 17:13, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> Il 05 aprile 2012 19:12, Arnaud Lacombe ha scritto:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> [Sorry for the delay, I got a bit sidetrack'ed...]
>>>
>
Il 05 aprile 2012 19:12, Arnaud Lacombe ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> [Sorry for the delay, I got a bit sidetrack'ed...]
>
> 2012/2/17 Alexander Motin :
>> On 17.02.2012 18:53, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 02/15/12 21:54, Jeff Roberso
2012/3/6, Attilio Rao :
> Author: attilio
> Date: Tue Mar 6 20:01:25 2012
> New Revision: 232619
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/232619
>
> Log:
> Disable the option VFS_ALLOW_NONMPSAFE by default on all the supported
> platforms.
> This will make e
Il 25 febbraio 2012 07:15, Doug Barton ha scritto:
> On 02/24/2012 21:00, Doug Barton wrote:
>> I'm on today's -current (r232126) and I'm getting the error in the
>> subject when trying to start postfix. I recompiled 2.9, and then tried
>> 2.8 both give the same error.
Did you also rebuilt w
2011/11/8 Attilio Rao :
> 2011/11/8 Attilio Rao :
>> Author: attilio
>> Date: Tue Nov 8 10:18:07 2011
>> New Revision: 227333
>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/227333
>>
>> Log:
>> Introduce the option VFS_ALLOW_NONMPSAFE and turn
2012/1/19 John Baldwin :
> On Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:02:57 am Glen Barber wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:50:45AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:01:37 pm Glen Barber wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > I'm running -CURRENT from about 5 days ago:
>> > >
>> >
2011/12/20 John Baldwin :
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:20:09 am Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/12/20 John Baldwin :
>> > On Saturday, December 17, 2011 10:41:15 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Alexander Kabaev
>> >> w
2011/12/20 John Baldwin :
> On Saturday, December 17, 2011 10:41:15 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
>> > On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:09:00 +0100
>> > "O. Hartmann" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sleeping thread (tid 100033, pid 16) owns a non sleepable lock
>>
2011/12/16 Arnaud Lacombe :
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:32 AM, O. Hartmann
> wrote:
>> Just saw this shot benchmark on Phoronix dot com today:
>>
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNzA
>>
> it might be worth highlighting that despite Oracle Linux 6.1 Server is
> usin
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/15/2011 11:56 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> So, as very first thing, can you try the following:
>> - Same codebase, etc. etc.
>> - Make the test 4 times, discard the first and ministat for the other 3
>> - Reboot
>> - Change the steal_
2011/12/15 Jeremy Chadwick :
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:26:27PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/12/13 Jeremy Chadwick :
>> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> >> > Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn&#
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/15/2011 11:42 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> I'm thinking now to a better test-case for this: can you try that on a
>> tmpfs volume?
>
> There is enough RAM in the box so that it should not touch the disk, and
> I was sending the
2011/12/15 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/15/2011 11:26 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>> was that just the same codebase with the switch SCHED_4BSD/SCHED_ULE?
>
> Hi Attilio,
> It was the same codebase.
>
>
>> Could you retry the bench checking
2011/12/13 Jeremy Chadwick :
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> > Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
>> > issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
>> > performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
>>
>> Do we have any
2011/12/14 Mike Tancsa :
> On 12/13/2011 7:01 PM, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone experiencing problems tried to set sysctl
>> kern.sched.steal_thresh=1 ?
>>
>> I don't remember what our specific problem at $WORK was, perhaps it
>> was just interrupt threads not getting serviced fast enou
2011/12/7 Andriy Gapon :
> on 07/12/2011 00:11 Attilio Rao said the following:
>> I'd just change this check on panicstr:
>> @@ -606,9 +603,13 @@ kdb_trap(int type, int code, struct trapframe *tf)
>> intr = intr_disable();
>>
>> #ifdef SMP
>> -
2011/12/6 Andriy Gapon :
> on 06/12/2011 20:34 Attilio Rao said the following:
> [snip]
>> - I'm not entirely sure, why we want to disable interrupts at this
>> moment (before to stop other CPUs)?:
>
> Because I believe that stop_cpus_hard() should run in a con
2011/11/13 Kostik Belousov :
> I was tricked into finishing the work by Andrey Gapon, who developed
> the patch to reliably stop other processors on panic. The patch
> greatly improves the chances of getting dump on panic on SMP host.
> Several people already saw the patchset, and I remember that
2011/12/4 Andriy Gapon :
> on 02/12/2011 19:18 Attilio Rao said the following:
>> BTW, I'm waiting for the details to settle (including the patch we
>> have been discussing internally about binding to CPU0 during ACPI
>> shutdown)
>
> I do not see strong interdepen
2011/12/4 Andriy Gapon :
> on 21/11/2011 18:58 Attilio Rao said the following:
>> I would be very in favor about having a 'thread trampoline for KDB',
>> thus that it can use locks.
>
> I keep hearing the suggestion to add this trampoline, but I admit that I do
&
2011/12/2 Andriy Gapon :
> on 02/12/2011 20:40 John Baldwin said the following:
>> On 12/2/11 12:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> 2011/12/2 John Baldwin:
>>>> On 12/2/11 5:05 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Bal
2011/12/2 John Baldwin :
> On 12/2/11 12:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> 2011/12/2 John Baldwin:
>>>
>>> On 12/2/11 5:05 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Baldwin said the following:
>>>>
2011/12/2 John Baldwin :
> On 12/2/11 5:05 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>> on 02/12/2011 06:36 John Baldwin said the following:
>>>
>>> Ah, ok (I had thought SCHEDULER_STOPPED was going to always be true when
>>> kdb was
>>> active). But I think these two changes should cover critical_exit() ok.
>>>
2011/11/21 John Baldwin :
> On Friday, November 18, 2011 4:59:32 pm Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 17/11/2011 23:38 John Baldwin said the following:
>> > On Thursday, November 17, 2011 4:35:07 pm John Baldwin wrote:
>> >> Hmmm, you could also make critical_exit() not perform deferred preemptions
>> >> i
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:22:38PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
>> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> >> This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans up vm_map.c:
>> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/sxfileline.patch
>>
>> What do you think about it?
>
&
2011/11/20 Attilio Rao :
> 2011/11/18 Attilio Rao :
>> 2011/11/18 Attilio Rao :
>>> 2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov :
>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>>>> 2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov :
>>>>> > On Tue, Nov
It looks good to me.
Attilio
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 07:02:14PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
>> > +#define vm_page_lock_assert(m, a) \
>> > + vm_page_lock_assert_KBI((m), (a), LOCK_FILE, L
2011/11/20 Kostik Belousov :
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/18 Attilio Rao :
>> > Please consider:
>> > http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/mutexfileline2.patch
>>
>> This is now committed as r227758,227759, you
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao :
> 2011/11/18 Attilio Rao :
>> 2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov :
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>>> 2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov :
>>>> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio
2011/11/18 Attilio Rao :
> 2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov :
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> 2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov :
>>> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> >> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov
2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov :
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov :
>> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> >> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
>> >> > On Mon, Nov
2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov :
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
>> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
>> >> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternati
2011/11/17 :
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/17 Andriy Gapon :
>>> BTW, it is my opinion that we really should not let the debugger code call
>>> mi_switch for any reason.
>>
>> Yes, I agree with this, this is why
2011/11/17 Andriy Gapon :
> on 17/11/2011 21:09 John Baldwin said the following:
>> On Thursday, November 17, 2011 11:58:03 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> on 17/11/2011 18:37 John Baldwin said the following:
On Thursday, November 17, 2011 4:47:42 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 17/11/2011 10:34 An
2011/11/15 :
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
>>> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
>>>> suffix
2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov :
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Ok. I'll offer one final suggestion. Please consider an alternative
>> suffix to "func". Perhaps, "kbi" or "KBI". In other words, something
>> that hints at the function's reason for existing.
>
> Sure. B
2011/11/13 Davide Italiano :
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Davide Italiano
> wrote:
>> Good evening folks.
>> During last days I've written a patch to add sandy bridge support to
>> hwpmc. Until now, the most recent Intel processor microarchitecture
>> supported was Westmere.
>> Testing is ap
2011/11/13 Davide Italiano :
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/11/13 Davide Italiano :
>>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Davide Italiano
>>> wrote:
>>>> Good evening folks.
>>>> During last days I've written
2011/11/13 Davide Italiano :
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Davide Italiano
> wrote:
>> Good evening folks.
>> During last days I've written a patch to add sandy bridge support to
>> hwpmc. Until now, the most recent Intel processor microarchitecture
>> supported was Westmere.
>> Testing is ap
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
