I thought I would pass by some proposed changes to the statistics
collection in sys/kern/vfs_cache.c to see if I am over-doing (or
under-doing) it, or just doing it wrong. Statistics are annoying.
Since this code was made MP-capable the basic method of stats
collection has been to provide each pr
Hi,
I found an defect of ifnet object initializations.
- if_attach and if_alloc_sadl is called in each
interface XXXattach function
- if_alloc_sadl may be called via XXX_ifattach
(e.g., ether_ifattach)
- if_attach initializes an ifnet object, but
the initialization is incomplete and if_
How many drivers are there (hardware-level drivers, not things like
raidframe) where it really matters for more than one lwp to be able to
be running (not stopped) in the driver at once?
I'm thinking probably network cards but not much else.
(This question is supposed to provoke a discussion; I h
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 03:02:39PM +, David Holland wrote:
> How many drivers are there (hardware-level drivers, not things like
> raidframe) where it really matters for more than one lwp to be able to
> be running (not stopped) in the driver at once?
>
> I'm thinking probably network cards bu
On Sat, 29 Nov 2014, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
My proposition is to add a new header in src/sys/sys/overflow.h
(/usr/include/sys/overflow.h) with the following content:
operator_XaddY_overflow()
operator_XsubY_overflow()
operator_XmulY_overflow()
X = optional s (signed)
Y = optional l,ll, etc
[*
Hi,
While trying to make some Linux instrumentation tool work on -current
amd64 I noticed that ptrace support in compat_linux and compat_linux32
have some notable differences and compat_linux32 has a better support.
For instance, I can debug 32bit Linux binaries with NetBSD's gdb but
any attempt t
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 05:53:12PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 03:02:39PM +, David Holland wrote:
> > How many drivers are there (hardware-level drivers, not things like
> > raidframe) where it really matters for more than one lwp to be able to
> > be running (not stop
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 02:28:04PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> They would, and many are simple enough to make this reasonably easy to do,
> but in practice, the giant locking of our SCSI code makes it pointless.
Sure, but we could also make the scsi code run without the giant lock.
Also, s
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 08:42:08PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 02:28:04PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > They would, and many are simple enough to make this reasonably easy to do,
> > but in practice, the giant locking of our SCSI code makes it pointless.
>
> Sure,
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 02:28:04PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> They would, and many are simple enough to make this reasonably easy to do,
>> but in practice, the giant locking of our SCSI code makes it pointless.
>
> Sure, but we coul
In article <20141201172756.GA29051@neva>,
Alexander Nasonov wrote:
>Hi,
>
>While trying to make some Linux instrumentation tool work on -current
>amd64 I noticed that ptrace support in compat_linux and compat_linux32
>have some notable differences and compat_linux32 has a better support.
>For ins
Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Should not be that hard, but what is that tool reading from PEEKUSER?
> Registers?
In both cases it reads from user_regs_struct, if I understand everything
correctly. But it's the first step, the tool would definitely try other
things if PEEKUSER didn't fail. In fact, I'm
On Dec 1, 9:06pm, al...@yandex.ru (Alexander Nasonov) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: status of Linux ptrace on amd64?
| Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > Should not be that hard, but what is that tool reading from PEEKUSER?
| > Registers?
|
| In both cases it reads from user_regs_struct, if I understand everyt
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> Try it! It's quite a mess, particularly around target and bus attach/detach.
scsipi and wscons are the worst in that respect.
(Who wants to be a hero?)
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 12:52:51PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > Try it! It's quite a mess, particularly around target and bus
> > attach/detach.
>
> scsipi and wscons are the worst in that respect.
>
> (Who wants to be a hero?)
...
actually getting any meaningful concurrency in the SCSI code, for disks,
...
Without, of course, sacrificing functionality for other things that
attach via SCSI (tapes? scanners? cd?)
:)
-
| Paul Goyette | PGP
16 matches
Mail list logo