On Thu, 04-Jul-2013 at 19:25:28 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 04:29:19PM +0200, Andre Albsmeier wrote:
> > OK, patch is applied. I will reboot the machine later
> > and see what happens tomorrow in the morning. However,
> > it might take a few days since the last 2 weeks all was
> > fine.
> >
> > BTW, should this patch be used in general or is it just
> > for debugging? My understanding is that it is something
> > which could stay in the code...
>
> Patch is to improve debugging.
>
> I probably commit it after the issue is closed. Arguments against
> the commit is that the change imposes small performance penalty
> due to save and restore of the %ebp (I doubt that this is measureable
> by any means). Also, arguably, such change should be done for all
> functions in support.s, but bcopy() is the hot spot.
Thanks to this patch, we (you ;-) were able to track down the problem.
So how are we going to deal with this debugging patch itself?
My suggestion would be to #ifdef it somehow so on one hand it will
be availabe in future (and with bcopy being used a lot probability
is high it might help in other places), on the other hand it won't
steal cycles during normal use.
-Andre
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
