On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:09:48AM -0400, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
>
...
> > Apparently a ping -f has a much lower RTT than one with non-zero
> > delay between transmissions. Part of the story could be that
> > the flood version invokes a non-blocking select.
> > On the other hand, pinging on the l
On 11.04.2012 01:32, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 07:05:00PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
CPU cache?
Cx states?
powerd?
powerd is disabled, and i am going down to C1 at most
> sysctl -a | grep cx
hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest: C1
dev.cpu.0.cx_supported: C1/1 C2/80
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:35:10PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 11.04.2012 01:32, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 07:05:00PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
> >>CPU cache?
> >>Cx states?
> >>powerd?
> >
> >powerd is disabled, and i am going down to C1 at most
> > > sysctl -a | g
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:31:53AM +0200, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 01:44:02AM -0400, AN wrote:
> > FreeBSD FBSD10 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #7 r234042: Sun Apr 8
> > 17:36:38 EDT 2012 root@FBSD10:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL amd64
> >
> > After a recent up
On 11.04.2012 13:00, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:35:10PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 11.04.2012 01:32, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 07:05:00PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
CPU cache?
Cx states?
powerd?
powerd is disabled, and i am going down to C1 at most
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:34:01PM +0200, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:31:53AM +0200, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 01:44:02AM -0400, AN wrote:
> > > FreeBSD FBSD10 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #7 r234042: Sun Apr 8
> > > 17:36:38 EDT 2012
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:16:49PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 11.04.2012 13:00, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:35:10PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >>On 11.04.2012 01:32, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 07:05:00PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
> CPU cac
On 29. Mar 2012, at 01:23 , O. Hartmann wrote:
Hi,
> Am 03/28/12 13:33, schrieb Andrey Fesenko:
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:09 PM, O. Hartmann
>> wrote:
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> Is FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT capable/ready to be run as a IPv6-only system? I
>>> read some time ago that to be run still some
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:53:38 +0300
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:34:01PM +0200, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:31:53AM +0200, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 01:44:02AM -0400, AN wrote:
> > > > FreeBSD FBSD10 10.0-CURRENT F
The following is the first occurence of wlock-within-wlock incident
when I run xfdesktop-settings under gdb.
Hardware watchpoint 3: lock_place[0].count_ww
Old value = 0
New value = 1
0x28f52522 in _thr_rtld_wlock_acquire (lock=0x28f63600)
at /usr/src/lib/libthr/thread/thr_rtld.c:152
152
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:04:11AM +0900, Taku YAMAMOTO wrote:
> The following is the first occurence of wlock-within-wlock incident
> when I run xfdesktop-settings under gdb.
>
> Hardware watchpoint 3: lock_place[0].count_ww
>
> Old value = 0
> New value = 1
> 0x28f52522 in _thr_rtld_wlock_acqui
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 03:53:38PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:34:01PM +0200, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:31:53AM +0200, Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm experiencing that too (r234038), xine also no longer starts (hangs
> > >
Hi,
I just booted FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE on a Xeon E5-1650 based platform. It
would seems that the CPU handles by itself a lots of PCI functions
which do not seem to be supported by FreeBSD. Here is the output of
`pciconf -l' restricted to unhandled devices:
none0@pci0:0:4:0: class=0x088000 card=0x0
On 11/04/2012 01:21, Daichi GOTO wrote:
> I do not know well. And I think Tod McQuillin could help you.
>(http://2012.asiabsdcon.org/timetable.html#T1B)
I have emailed Tod on an address I found in the archive here from 2009.
I've been digging around the archive of this list to see if I could s
On 12/04/2012 00:26, Sevan / Venture37 wrote:
> I have emailed Tod on an address I found in the archive here from 2009.
> I've been digging around the archive of this list to see if I could shed
> any more light on the matter& found this reply from John Birrell
> himself 3 months after DTrace had
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:16:49PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 11.04.2012 13:00, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:35:10PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 11.04.2012 01:32, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Things going through loopback go through a
TB --- 2012-04-12 03:00:05 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-04-12 03:00:05 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
I'm glad to report that your patch fixes not only wlock-within-wlock cases
but also rlock-within-wlock cases properly!
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:42:39 +0300
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:04:11AM +0900, Taku YAMAMOTO wrote:
(snip)
> > The following is the first occurence o
18 matches
Mail list logo
