Re: userland weirdness between r216351 and r216738

2011-01-01 Thread poyopoyo
A happy new yaer Ren$(D+1(B, At Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:35:05 +0100, Ren$(D+1(B Ladan wrote: > somewhere between 9.0-amd64 r216351 and r216738, I've noticed some > userland weirdness. I suppose you've been hit by rtld bug between r216695[*1] and r216728[*2]. It broke certain kind of dynamic link

Re: Suddenly slow lstat syscalls on CURRENT from Juli

2011-01-01 Thread Julian Elischer
On 1/1/11 9:26 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote: On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:59:10PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: On 01.01.2011 17:46, Kostik Belousov wrote: On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:42:58PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: On 01.01.2011 17:12, Kostik Belousov wrote: On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:00:56PM +0100, B

Re: boost libs error

2011-01-01 Thread Doug Barton
On 01/01/2011 13:40, Alexander Churanov wrote: 2011/1/1 Doug Barton: I'm getting the following with qbittorrent-23 which depends on libtorrent-rasterbar-15 after the latest boost lib update: qbittorrent terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::runtime_error' what(): locale::facet

Re: boost libs error

2011-01-01 Thread Alexander Churanov
2011/1/1 Doug Barton : > I'm getting the following with qbittorrent-23 which depends on > libtorrent-rasterbar-15 after the latest boost lib update: > > qbittorrent > terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::runtime_error' >  what():  locale::facet::_S_create_c_locale name not valid > A

Re: wlan/wpi are more broken than 3 weeks.

2011-01-01 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 02:05:25AM +0100, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > On Monday 27 December 2010 01:32:56 Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 11:25:05PM +0100, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > > > How about providing the info I asked for last time? Now that you have > > > build the necessary opti

Re: Suddenly slow lstat syscalls on CURRENT from Juli

2011-01-01 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:59:10PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: > On 01.01.2011 17:46, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:42:58PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: > >> On 01.01.2011 17:12, Kostik Belousov wrote: > >>> On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:00:56PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: > On 01.0

Re: Suddenly slow lstat syscalls on CURRENT from Juli

2011-01-01 Thread Beat Gätzi
On 01.01.2011 17:46, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:42:58PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: >> On 01.01.2011 17:12, Kostik Belousov wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:00:56PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: On 01.01.2011 16:45, Kostik Belousov wrote: > Check the output of sysctl

Re: Suddenly slow lstat syscalls on CURRENT from Juli

2011-01-01 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:42:58PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: > On 01.01.2011 17:12, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:00:56PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: > >> On 01.01.2011 16:45, Kostik Belousov wrote: > >>> Check the output of sysctl kern.maxvnodes and vfs.numvnodes. I suspect > >

Re: Suddenly slow lstat syscalls on CURRENT from Juli

2011-01-01 Thread Beat Gätzi
On 01.01.2011 17:12, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:00:56PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: >> On 01.01.2011 16:45, Kostik Belousov wrote: >>> Check the output of sysctl kern.maxvnodes and vfs.numvnodes. I suspect >>> they are quite close or equial. If yes, consider increasing maxvnod

Re: Suddenly slow lstat syscalls on CURRENT from Juli

2011-01-01 Thread Alexander Best
On Sat Jan 1 11, Beat Gätzi wrote: > On 01.01.2011 16:10, Alexander Best wrote: > > On Sat Jan 1 11, Beat Gätzi wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Since a couple of days commands like ls(1) are very slow on one of my > >> tinderboxes. Checking with ktrace/kdump I see that the lstat syscall > >> takes abou

Re: Suddenly slow lstat syscalls on CURRENT from Juli

2011-01-01 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:00:56PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: > On 01.01.2011 16:45, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > Check the output of sysctl kern.maxvnodes and vfs.numvnodes. I suspect > > they are quite close or equial. If yes, consider increasing maxvnodes. > > Another workaround, if you have huge ne

Re: Suddenly slow lstat syscalls on CURRENT from Juli

2011-01-01 Thread Beat Gätzi
On 01.01.2011 16:45, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 04:37:44PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: >> On 01.01.2011 16:10, Alexander Best wrote: >>> On Sat Jan 1 11, Beat G?tzi wrote: Hi, Since a couple of days commands like ls(1) are very slow on one of my tinderboxes.

Re: Suddenly slow lstat syscalls on CURRENT from Juli

2011-01-01 Thread Kostik Belousov
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 04:37:44PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: > On 01.01.2011 16:10, Alexander Best wrote: > > On Sat Jan 1 11, Beat G?tzi wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Since a couple of days commands like ls(1) are very slow on one of my > >> tinderboxes. Checking with ktrace/kdump I see that the lstat

Re: Suddenly slow lstat syscalls on CURRENT from Juli

2011-01-01 Thread Beat Gätzi
On 01.01.2011 16:10, Alexander Best wrote: > On Sat Jan 1 11, Beat Gätzi wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Since a couple of days commands like ls(1) are very slow on one of my >> tinderboxes. Checking with ktrace/kdump I see that the lstat syscall >> takes about one second: >> >> 70559 ls 0.004644 CALL

Re: Suddenly slow lstat syscalls on CURRENT from Juli

2011-01-01 Thread Alexander Best
On Sat Jan 1 11, Beat Gätzi wrote: > Hi, > > Since a couple of days commands like ls(1) are very slow on one of my > tinderboxes. Checking with ktrace/kdump I see that the lstat syscall > takes about one second: > > 70559 ls 0.004644 CALL lstat(0x284472f8,0x28447298) > 70559 ls 0.

Suddenly slow lstat syscalls on CURRENT from Juli

2011-01-01 Thread Beat Gätzi
Hi, Since a couple of days commands like ls(1) are very slow on one of my tinderboxes. Checking with ktrace/kdump I see that the lstat syscall takes about one second: 70559 ls 0.004644 CALL lstat(0x284472f8,0x28447298) 70559 ls 0.004651 NAMI "Mk" 70559 ls 0.004664 STRU str

Re: userland weirdness between r216351 and r216738

2011-01-01 Thread René Ladan
2010/12/31 : > A happy new yaer Ren�+1, > > At Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:35:05 +0100, > Ren�+1 Ladan wrote: >> somewhere between 9.0-amd64 r216351 and r216738, I've noticed some >> userland weirdness. > > I suppose you've been hit by rtld bug between r216695[*1] and r216728[*2]. > Maybe, but then someth

Re: userland weirdness between r216351 and r216738

2011-01-01 Thread Alexander Best
On Sat Jan 1 11, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 01:06:00 + > Alexander Best wrote: > > > > > i tried adding the following to CFLAGS to prevent clang from using > > any SSE* instructions, but it seems that doesn't work: > > > > CFLAGS=-mno-sse -mno-sse2 -mno-sse3 -mno-3dnow -m

Re: userland weirdness between r216351 and r216738

2011-01-01 Thread Alexander Kabaev
On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 01:06:00 + Alexander Best wrote: > > i tried adding the following to CFLAGS to prevent clang from using > any SSE* instructions, but it seems that doesn't work: > > CFLAGS=-mno-sse -mno-sse2 -mno-sse3 -mno-3dnow -mno-ssse3 returned: > > fatal error: error in backend: SSE