On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 05:26:15PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 04:06:29PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:18:31 +0300
> > > From: Vitaliy Makkoveev
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08:13AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 04:06:29PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:18:31 +0300
> > From: Vitaliy Makkoveev
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08:13AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > >
> > > On the other side, would that make sense to have a NET_LOCK()-free
> > > sysct
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:18:31 +0300
> From: Vitaliy Makkoveev
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08:13AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> >
> > On the other side, would that make sense to have a NET_LOCK()-free
> > sysctl path?
> >
>
> To me it's better to remove uvm_vslock() from network relat
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08:13AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>
> On the other side, would that make sense to have a NET_LOCK()-free
> sysctl path?
>
To me it's better to remove uvm_vslock() from network related sysctl
paths. uvm_vslock() used to avoid context switch in the uiomove() call
to
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08:13AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>
> So the issue here is due to NFS entering the network stack after the
> VFS. Alexander, Vitaly are we far from a NET_LOCK()-free sosend()?
> Is something we should consider?
>
We are close enough, but I want to unlock raw and U
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:08:13 +0200
> From: Martin Pieuchot
>
> On 27/04/24(Sat) 13:44, Visa Hankala wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 02:48:32PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > I agree. Now I'd be very grateful if someone could dig into WITNESS to
> > > figure out why we se
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:08:13AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > With the patch, the nfsnode-vmmaplk reversal looks like this:
>
> So the issue here is due to NFS entering the network stack after the
> VFS. Alexander, Vitaly are we far from a NET_LOCK()-free sosend()?
> Is something we should
On 27/04/24(Sat) 13:44, Visa Hankala wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 02:48:32PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > [...]
> > I agree. Now I'd be very grateful if someone could dig into WITNESS to
> > figure out why we see such reports. Are these false positive or are we
> > missing data from the
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 02:48:32PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 22/04/24(Mon) 16:18, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:39:55 +0200
> > > From: Alexander Bluhm
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I see a witness lock order reversal warning with soreceive. It
> > > happens during
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 02:48:32PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 22/04/24(Mon) 16:18, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:39:55 +0200
> > > From: Alexander Bluhm
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I see a witness lock order reversal warning with soreceive. It
> > > happens during
On 22/04/24(Mon) 16:18, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:39:55 +0200
> > From: Alexander Bluhm
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I see a witness lock order reversal warning with soreceive. It
> > happens during NFS regress tests. In /var/log/messages is more
> > context from regress.
> >
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 04:18:46PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:39:55 +0200
> > From: Alexander Bluhm
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I see a witness lock order reversal warning with soreceive. It
> > happens during NFS regress tests. In /var/log/messages is more
> > context f
> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:39:55 +0200
> From: Alexander Bluhm
>
> Hi,
>
> I see a witness lock order reversal warning with soreceive. It
> happens during NFS regress tests. In /var/log/messages is more
> context from regress.
>
> Apr 22 03:18:08 ot29 /bsd: uid 0 on
> /mnt/regress-ffs/fstes
13 matches
Mail list logo
