Wiring entire address space seems to have interesting side effect. The libc
memory allocator calls madvise() to free the dirty unused pages, which does
nothing when the pages are wired. The allocator unmaps only when entire chunk
is free (default size of 1MB). That leaves lots for free pages whi
I've implemented the sched provider for FreeBSD. This provider
provides probes that fire when various scheduling decisions are made.
This implementation is intended to be compatible with the
implementation in Solaris and its derivatives, with the following
caveats:
Several probes reference featur
On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:00:18 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 18/04/2012 17:40 Ian Lepore said the following:
> > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 17:36 +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >> on 18/04/2012 17:22 Ian Lepore said the following:
> >>> YES! A size field (preferably as the first field in the struct)
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:30:15 -0700
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 17 April 2012 12:15, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> > I still have the old problem kernel around, but it's probably not
> > instrumented for any meaningful diagnoses.
>
> Well do you know which version of which tree you used to build that?
>
on 18/04/2012 17:40 Ian Lepore said the following:
> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 17:36 +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 18/04/2012 17:22 Ian Lepore said the following:
>>> YES! A size field (preferably as the first field in the struct) along
>>> with a flag to indicate that it's a new-style boot info st
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 17:36 +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 18/04/2012 17:22 Ian Lepore said the following:
> > YES! A size field (preferably as the first field in the struct) along
> > with a flag to indicate that it's a new-style boot info struct that
> > starts with a size field, will allow fut
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 17:36 +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 18/04/2012 17:22 Ian Lepore said the following:
> > YES! A size field (preferably as the first field in the struct) along
> > with a flag to indicate that it's a new-style boot info struct that
> > starts with a size field, will allow fut
on 18/04/2012 17:22 Ian Lepore said the following:
> YES! A size field (preferably as the first field in the struct) along
> with a flag to indicate that it's a new-style boot info struct that
> starts with a size field, will allow future changes without a lot of
> drama. It can allow code that h
On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 09:41 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:02:22 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > on 17/04/2012 23:43 John Baldwin said the following:
> > > On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:22:19 pm Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > >> We already have a flag for ZFS (KARGS_FLAGS_ZFS, 0x4).
On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 2:02:22 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 17/04/2012 23:43 John Baldwin said the following:
> > On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:22:19 pm Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >> We already have a flag for ZFS (KARGS_FLAGS_ZFS, 0x4). So the new flag
> >> could be
> >> named something ZFS-speci
on 18/04/2012 13:49 Konstantin Belousov said the following:
> This is from the ELF standard version 1.2 PDF, page 1-5:
>
> When the link editor searches archive libraries, it extracts archive
> members that contain definitions of undefined global symbols. The member's
> definition may be either a
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 01:36:26PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> I just would like to share something that I stumbled upon.
> Maybe this is something well known, then forgive me for the noise.
>
> When ld combines multiple object files it overrides weak symbol definitions
> with
> a strong defi
I just would like to share something that I stumbled upon.
Maybe this is something well known, then forgive me for the noise.
When ld combines multiple object files it overrides weak symbol definitions with
a strong definition (if any). There are many examples/demonstrations on the
Internet on h
on 15/04/2012 04:01 Bob Friesenhahn said the following:
> It would be nice if the updated FreeBSD bootloader could have the ability to
> boot both Solaris and FreeBSD root filesystems in the same pool so that one
> could switch between several zfs-based operating systems without needing to
> use
>
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Matthew Story wrote:
> Is there anyway either of you could provide me with an archive of the
> working tree for these 2 perforce repos? or make it available in a branch
> on svn.freebsd.org? I'd like to look into this more, but after reading
> through the P4Web d
on 14/04/2012 18:37 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>
> I would like to ask for a review and/or testing of the following three
> patches:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/zfsboot.patches.diff
I've put a new version of the patch here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/zfsboot.patches.2.diff
Most p
16 matches
Mail list logo
